Preamble

The House met a half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered;

Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Standing Order 151 (Application of Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, etc., to tramroads) repealed.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PETITIONS

Barnard Castle-Penrith Railway (Closure)

Mr. Boyden: I beg leave to submit to this Honourable House six Petitions objecting to the closure of the Barnard Castle to Penrith railway line. The six Petitioners are the Barnard Castle Rural District Council, the Shildon Urban District Council, the Bishop Auckland Urban District Council and the Darlington Corporation under their common seal, and they are supported by the Cumberland County Council, the Durham County Council and two Petitions signed by 2,000 members of the public representing the Friends of the Lake District and the Ramblers' Association and other amenity interests.
The Petitioners state that as representatives of well over 1 million people in the North they fear the damage that the closure of this line will do to the economy of South-West Durham, parts of the North Riding, Westmorland and parts of Cumberland. They fear the hardship which will be caused to

soldiers, convalescent mine workers, farmers and farm workers, the sick, the aged, apprentices and students and railway workers. They fear the aggravation of the already dangerous condition of road A.66 and they fear the deprivation to thousands of industrial workers on Tees-side and in Durham of opportunities for recreation in the country. They fear the damage to the tourist industry of the Lake District, Teesdale, Weardale and Kirkby Stephen. They fear the tribulation which will be caused to the rural communities in severe weather and the dangers that might result to the urban population in times of war.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that this House ask the Minister of Transport to give a direction to the British Transport Commission that the direct railway service from Barnard Castle to Penrith be maintained and improved.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the table.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

1–8, Charlotte Street, Bristol

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) whether he is aware of the continued deterioration of numbers 1 to 8, Charlotte Street, Bristol, which are listed as buildings of architectural interest; and what action he is now taking to preserve them;
(2) whether the owners of numbers 1 to 8, Charlotte Street, Bristol, have informed him of any plans for the preservation of the facades and for reconstruction of the interiors.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): My right hon. Friend has no power to require works of repair and maintenance to be done. However, a new scheme for converting the houses into small residential units was submitted recently to the Bristol City Council and referred by it to him. This provides for the retention of the existing facades, and my right


hon. Friend has told the council that he welcomes it. He understands that it has granted planning permission.

Mr. Cooke: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him if he is aware that it will give great satisfaction to my constituents?

Redevelopment Plan, Lewisham (Car Park)

Mr. Chataway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has received a letter dated 6th July, from the Lewisham Chamber of Commerce on the subject of the provision of a general car park to be included in the redevelopment plan for Loampit Vale, Lewisham; and what reply he has given.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir; I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the reply. The question of a public car park is for the London County Council and the Lewisham Borough Council.

Mr. Chataway: If in the end the decision is called for from my hon. Friend's Department, will he bear in mind that there is very serious concern in Lewisham about this car park and that it is felt that a car park in this area is absolutely essential to the trade of the borough?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

Oxford Roads Inquiry

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposals for relieving traffic congestion in Oxford; and if, before taking a decision on the inspector's report, he will arrange in the Palace of Westminster a display of models showing the effect of the various schemes on the amenities of the city and university.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), on 18th July, I regret I can see no possibility of announcing my decision on the Oxford roads inquiry before the Recess. A large number of schemes were canvassed at the inquiry, and I doubt whether the construction of models representing each of

them would really facilitate an understanding of the problem, which is partly one of the character of the university city and partly one of traffic flow.

Mr. Driberg: Is the Minister aware that some concern was caused by his statement that he could not announce his decision before the Recess? Is there any risk that he will announce it during the Recess and that irrevocable work might start forthwith, without the House having had a chance of debating the matter, as it was fully debated in another place—as the Minister knows, in a sense largely unfavourable to the inspector's report?

Mr. Brooke: There would have been a chance, no doubt, of debating this matter in the three months or so since the inspector's report was published. I said in reply to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) last week that I could not undertake that I would not reach my decision during the Recess, but following my decision the city council will have to submit an amendment to its development plan on which, if there are objections—and there always are—there will be another public inquiry. I can assure the hon. Member that it will be some time before any digging starts.

Euston Station (Doric Arch)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister for Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will, in consultation with interested organisations, delay the demolition of the Doric portico at Euston while the possibility of securing its preservation or re-erection by public subscription is explored.

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport explained on 12th July, any further delay would disrupt the urgent reconstruction of the underground station.

Mr. Driberg: Would the hon. Member look at a letter in today's Guardian in which two interesting points are made—first, that the developers who make such enormous tax-free capital gains out of ruining London might voluntarily contribute the relatively small sum needed to save this fine arch; and, secondly, that competent architects can usually


incorporate old features of value in a new design?

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend's task is limited to deciding whether the Building Preservation Order is justified. He discharged that task more than a year ago. The question of re-erection is not for my right hon. Friend.

London Allowances

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities not paying London allowances under the Burnham scale will secure an increased grant from his Department because of grant increases arising from the allowance his Department makes in the general grant on account of increased London allowances.

Mr. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to a similar Question asked by him on 20th June.

Mr. Boyden: Will the Minister make it quite clear to local authorities, who do not seem to agree with him, that the authorities which do not pay London allowances may very well receive increased grant owing to the inflexibility of the general grant arrangements?

Mr. Brooke: I think that the arrangements are not as inflexible as that. I pointed out in reply to a previous Question what happened about rate deficiency grant, and I added that the authorities liable to pay the London allowances are also those which are entitled to supplementary grants on account of higher costs and so forth. That supplementary grant will be reviewed in consultation with the local authority associations before the distribution formula is adjusted to take account of any increase of aggregate of the grant. The whole matter will be looked at carefully.

Rights of Way (Survey)

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects the survey of rights of way, as provided by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, to be completed so that the whole of England and Wales will be covered by definitive maps.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend cannot say when definitive maps will be available for the whole of England and Wales. So far 25 county councils in England and Wales have published definitive maps for the whole of their areas and seven for parts of their areas.

Mr. Johnson: In view of the fact that the survey should have been completed under the provisions of the Act in 1955, which is six years ago, will the Parliamentary Secretary invite his right hon. Friend to bring pressure to bear upon the more dilatory councils, or even consider intervening, as he has power to do under the Act, especially as the public interests are being neglected or adversely affected by the long delay?

Sir K. Joseph: This is an immense job needing a great degree of precision. Acceleration would only increase the number of appeals or reduce the accuracy, or both.

Mr. K. Lewis: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is a rather unhealthy but, I understand, well-founded rumour that a bureaucratic bulldozer is about to remove the County of Rutland, or to suggest that it should be removed, off the map altogether? Is he further aware that the people of Rutland and myself will stand firm against this proposal?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question is about the survey of rights of way.

National Parks Commission (Recommendations)

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the growing need for amendment of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, he will introduce the necessary legislation at an early date on the basis of the recommendations submitted by the National Parks Commission.

Mr. Brooke: I have just received revised proposals from the National Parks Commission, and I am studying these, together with all the suggestions which I have received from other quarters. I am not in a position at present to make any further statement.

Mr. Johnson: Arising out of that reply, may I ask whether the Minister can hold out any hope that the amending Measure will find its place in the next Parliamentary programme, particularly as it was announced on his behalf more than a year ago at a National Parks conference in the North that there was then a chance of finding a reasonably early place for it?

Mr. Brooke: At a National Parks conference the other day I said that I hoped that it would fall to me to bring in an amending Bill but that I could not be certain in which Session that would be.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Minister aware that much of the good work of the National Parks Commission has been frustrated by its lack of financial powers? Will he pay particular regard to that in any amendment which he is considering?

Mr. Brooke: No. I am sure that it would be possible for the park planning committees to do considerably more within their existing legislation and within their existing grant schemes.

Special Order Procedure

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on the inquiry which took place into the operation of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, arising out of the undertakings given in the debate on the Leicester (Amendment of Local Enactments) Order, 1959; and what action Her Majesty's Government propose to remedy the shortcomings of special order procedure, to which attention was drawn during that debate from both sides of the House.

Mr. Brooke: The Government propose that Orders under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875, such as the Leicester Order which gave rise to the inquiry, should revert to the Provisional Order procedure, but that the Special Parliamentary procedure should be retained for other types of Order, subject to certain possible amendments. I will, with permission, circulate a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:
The main criticism made during the debates on the Leicester (Amendment of Local Enactments) Order, 1959, was that the Special procedure provides only limited opportunities for the Parliamentary examination of Ministerial orders. An order subject to the Special procedure is not scrutinised in detail unless a petition for amendment is presented, and amendments may then be made only so far as they are needed to give effect to such a petition.
The Leicester Order was made under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which gives wide powers to amend local Acts by order. Originally such orders had to be confirmed by means of Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, but by Order in Council in 1949 they were made subject to the Special procedure.
The Government have come to the conclusion that the order-making power in Section 303 is so wide that Special Parliamentary procedure is not apt for the consideration of orders made under it. They therefore intend to seek amendment of the Order in Council of 1949 so that orders under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875, should revert to the Provisional Order procedure. This means that such orders would once more be scrutinised by a committee of each House and would be subject to amendment whether or not petitions had been presented.
The great majority of orders to which Special Parliamentary procedure applies are not, however, of this character. They are orders whose purpose is the application to local circumstances of a general policy formulated within a framework laid down by Parliament.
The Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, was passed with this type of order particularly in view. The purpose was to provide a procedure which would be speedier and cheaper for promoters and opponents of orders than the Provisional order procedure; and which would, at the same time, enable general issues to be considered in the appropriate place—on the Floor of the House. For orders of this kind the Government considers that there continues to be a need for the Special Parliamentary procedure, and that it should be retained in substantially its present form.
A number of minor modifications to the procedure were suggested during the course of the inquiry, some of which would involve amendment of the 1945 Act. It does not appear to the Government that there is an urgent need for legislation, but they consider that, if the occasion presents itself, further consideration might be given to three possible changes: (1) to make it easier for petitions of general objection to be referred to a Joint Committee (except in the case of Scottish orders which, if opposed, will already have been inquired into by Parliamentary Commissioners); (2) to allow petitions to be accepted in certain circumstances even though presented out of time; and (3) to extend the resolution period.
It has been suggested that each House might be helped if their attention could be drawn to any special point raised by an order subject


to Special Parliamentary procedure, and that this might be achieved by means which do not involve legislation. I am taking this up with the appropriate House authorities.

Local Government Commission for Wales

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's present policy regarding the Local Government Commission for Wales.

Mr. Brooke: The Local Government Commission for Wales were appointed under the Local Government Act, 1958, and their review of local authorities is following the procedure laid down by that Act. The Commission have not yet made any recommendations to me. They have published draft proposals as a basis for discussion with local authorities and other bodies concerned.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the most comprehensive and far-reaching reform of local government in Wales since the formation of the county councils? Will he give same idea of the intended timetable? I do not hold him to that firmly, but it would be useful to know what is in the Government's mind when the House is called upon to make judgments about the Minister's views.

Mr. Brooke: I cannot give an exact timetable. The Local Government Commission gave the local authorities eight weeks in which to express their views on the draft proposals and I think that it has expressed willingness to extend that period of eight weeks. After that, the Local Government Commission has a statutory duty to hold a conference with the local authorities concerned. Only after that will the Commission send in to me its draft proposals. Then I must publish them and then there will be further opportunity for objection and public inquiry. Quite a lot has to be done.

Mr. C. Hughes: Where far-reaching proposals of this kind are made, is it not desirable that the Commission should give the fullest reasons why it is making these recommendations? Will the Minister require it do so in due course?

Mr. Brooke: The Local Government Commission in this case has given fuller reasons than, for example, the Local Government Commission for England gave in relation to its first draft proposals. If subsequent proceedings of the Local Government Commission for England are any guide, any report and recommendations put forward to the Minister will be advanced with a full wealth of argument and explanation.

Land, Plymouth (Sale)

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will order an immediate inquiry into the circumstances in which Plymouth City Council in 1954 compulsorily acquired five acres of agricultural land from Mr. Thomas Worden Bickle for municipal building at a price of £1,500; whether he is aware that the council has now decided to sell the same plot for private development far £15,000; and whether he will instruct the council to postpone any sale of this property until after he has held a full inquiry.

Mr. Brooke: These five acres form part of an area of over 200 acres acquired seven or eight years ago for housing purposes after a public inquiry. There is therefore no need for a further inquiry now into the circumstances of the acquisition. The buying and selling figures quoted by the hon. Member are not comparable, because in the 'interval the council has laid out the estate, of which this land forms a small part, with roads and services.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 33 acres of private property were compulsorily acquired by the Labour Council for municipal housing? Is he aware that not a single municipal house has been put up and that the Conservative majority intends to sell to private speculators, and that although, admittedly, £6,000 has been spent on drainage and other services, a £1,500 plot will be sold at £15,000? Is he aware that under Section 18 of the 1959 Act not a penny of compensation can be obtained by the private owner? Is he aware that no attempt has been to sell it back to him? Is he further aware that vast profits have already been made by selling to an industrial user? Is he


seriously suggesting that this is a proper exercise of statutory powers by councils?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member has asked a number of questions. The original owner had every opportunity to tender for the land when it was offered for sale, but I presume that he did not wish to do so as he wanted agricultural land and the character of the land was no longer agricultural. The original purpose was stated at the public inquiry, when it was made perfectly clear that not all the land would necessarily be used for municipal housing. Any authority, whether Labour or Conservative controlled, is quite within its rights if having bought 200 acres, as in this case, it decides that some five acres should be made available for private houses.

Sir H. Studholme: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in fairness to Plymouth City Council it should be emphasised that the council has not done anything illegal or underhand in this matter.

Mr. Thorpe: I did not say so.

Sir H. Studholme: Is he aware that these five acres have been advertised for sale three times and that Mr. Bickle's agents did not make a bid because any offer would have had to include—[Interruption.]—the cost of services brought by the council on to the land and that Mr. Bickle—

Mr. Thorpe: Absolutely outrageous.

Sir H. Studholme: If the hon. Member will keep quiet he will hear what I have to say. Mr. Bickle's agents did not make an offer because Mr. Bickle was not in a position to make such an offer. His trouble was, unfortunately, that he sold the land before the 1959 Act came into operation. Does the hon. Member for Devon, North set himself up as a champion of the liberty of the people in Plymouth, which is quite a long way from North Devon, when he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is suffering from questions which are too long.

Smoke Control, Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action

he is taking to assist the smoke control programme of the council of the county borough of Sunderland.

Sir K. Joseph: I think the hon. Member has the smokeless fuel supply position in mind, and I would refer him to the reply made yseterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

Mr. Willey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that is not a very satisfactory reply and that what is worrying us is that we appear to be not likely to get the fuel which we will require for the smokeless zone? This seems to be very bad planning. In the light of the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will the Parliamentary Secretary do what he can to ensure that we get the supplies required?

Sir K. Joseph: indicated assent.

Dartmoor National Park (Cholwichtown Stone Row)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what advice he received from the National Parks Commission about the future of Cholwichtown Stone Row in the Dartmoor National Park.

Sir K. Joseph: The Commission expressed the view that it would appreciate anything which could be done to avoid burying the stone row, subject to other considerations which it recognises that my right hon. Friend might have to take into account.

Mr. Hayman: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why the Minister overrode the advice of the National Parks Commission, as most people believe that his decision was wrong?

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot accept that my right hon. Friend overrode the Commission's advice. He took account of the considerations which he had to take into account, and came to his decision accordingly.

Sir H. Studholme: Is my hon. Friend aware that while I am very sorry that these ancient stones, which happen to be in my constituency, should be covered up, but happily not destroyed—

Mr. Lipton: Too long.

Sir H. Studholme: —my right hon. Friend has done the right thing, because, so far as I can see, no material new factor has emerged since the inquiry in 1958?

National Parks (Afforestation)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a statement upon the working of the voluntary agreement betwen the Timber Growers' Association, the County Landowners' Association, the National Parks Commission and the Forestry Commission for the control of afforestation in the national parks.

Sir K. Joseph: There is little for me to report. The local discussions for which the agreement provides are taking place, with every indication that all concerned are willingly co-operating and making the scheme work.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there is any hope of a reprieve for High House Moor from planting in this autumn?

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that an agreement has been made satisfactory to and with concessions from both sides.

Mr. C. Johnson: What steps are taken to give publicity to proposals arising out of agreements so that everyone concerned becomes aware of them?

Sir K. Joseph: After consultations, the maps will be made public.

New Towns

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that most of the capital programme of new town local authorities is aimed at providing facilities already possessed in more established areas; and what is his policy towards loan sanctions for these local authorities, in view of Her Majesty's Government's present economic policy.

Mr. Brooke: I appreciate the problem facing the new town local authorities in providing facilities which established towns already have. They are doing a good deal already, and will continue doing so; but in order to help the country out of its economic difficulties I may have to

postpone loan sanction for some projects which seem not as urgent as others.

Mr. Skeffington: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the new towns have done remarkably well, having done a tremendous amount in a short time, but that as a result, and because of the need to keep up with comparable localities elsewhere, it will be a very great hardship if their development schemes were to be unnecessarily restricted? Will he try to temper the wind as much as possible in this connection?

Mr. Brooke: I certainly appreciate that the new towns are in a very special position. Nevertheless, even in the new towns there are different degrees of urgency of need.

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what effect Her Majesty's Government's present economic policy will have on the work of the new town development corporations; what guidance he has given to the corporations on their future development proposals; and what is his policy towards future proposals for grants under Section 11 of the New Towns Act, 1946.

Mr. Brooke: I expect the present steady progress to continue, but I shall be asking established development corporations to keep within their current level of expenditure, and to make savings or to postpone less urgent projects where they can. My policy on contributions by development corporations towards expenditure by local authorities will not be changed, but authorities will very likely postpone some projects which, though desirable, cannot be regarded as essential in present circumstances.

Mr. Skeffington: While thanking the Minister for one part of that Answer, might I remind him that, on preliminary figures, some of the new town corporations are likely to face a fairly serious juvenile unemployment position in two or three years? Therefore, when looking at these schemes, will the right hon. Gentleman do nothing to stop the capital development of new factories and new place of employment?
Referring to Section 11, may I ask the Minister to realise that the rates of the new towns are often above average, largely because of their having had to


embark on capital expenditure during periods of high interest rates? Will he also bear that in mind so that the new citizens in the new towns will not have too great a burden put upon them?

Mr. Brooke: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. Of course, the rateable value of the new towns is mounting rapidly.

Land, Birmingham (Purchase)

Mr. J. Silverman: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government arid Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware of the purchase of land for housing purposes at Harborne by the Birmingham City Council at a cost of £15,000 for which he gave loan sanction; and what estimate he has made of the part of this cost which was due to the operations of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, and the Town arid Country Planning Act, 1959.

Mr. Denis Howell: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government arid Minister for Welsh Affairs, whether he is aware of the purchase of land for housing purposes at Harborne by the Birmingham City Council; and what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of this development.

Mr. Brooke: I presume that the land referred to is Metchley Grange. I have made no estimates of the kinds mentioned in the Questions.

Mr. Silverman: Does the Minister realise that the price of this land has risen several times in the past few years and that buying land like this is a serious burden on a local authority and a disincentive to its buying housing land? Whatever estimates the right hon. Gentleman may have made, what steps does he intend to take about the price of such land as this in areas of this kind?

Mr. Brooke: We debated the price of land over a whole day recently and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman took part in that debate. I am certainly aware that the prices paid by local authorities have gone up in this case, and elsewhere, but I think that the whole country rejects the old basis of compensation for compulsory purchase, which was below market value. Of course, if a local authority is developing

an expensive site like this for housing purposes, it gets expensive site subsidy.

Mr. Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this land has recently changed hands for £15,000 an acre and that only five years ago land immediately adjacent to it was sold at £450 an acre? Is not this a phenomenal increase brought about, in the main, by the vigorous activities of a progressive local authority in Birmingham; and is it right that community activity like this should result in vast profits going into private hands when they should go back to the public exchequer?

Mr. Brooke: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have realised the fallacy of comparing purchase now on a market basis with a purchase undertaken under the old system whereby the local authority was enabled to acquire someone's land compulsorily and pay much less than the market value.

Mr. Cleaver: Is the Minister aware that the high price of land in the city is largely due to the fact that the Socialist Council owns hundreds of plots of land which it will not develop?

Mr. Stewart: Does not all this mean that some people are doing very nicely at the public expense and that the Chancellor's statement is not going to touch them at all?

Mr. Brooke: What the Chancellor's statement will do remains to be seen, but I really trust that we in this country shall be saved from the Socialist plan for land acquisition which, as I have pointed out, will lead either to no land coming on to the market at all or else even more widespread compulsory purchase.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Coasts (National Parks)

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if the National Parks Commission has yet decided to designate part of the Hampshire coast, part of the Isle of Wight coast, and the tidal waters in between as areas of outstanding beauty or as a national park.

Sir K. Joseph: I understand that the National Parks Commission will shortly


open formal consultation with the local authorities concerned, with a view to designating two areas of outstanding natural beauty. These will include part of the Hampshire coast and part of the Isle of Wight coast, but not the tidal waters in between.

Mr. Woodnutt: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, can he give an indication of when this decision will be made, bearing in mind the fact that our noble Friend said some months ago in the House of Lords that it was being considered? Can my hon. Friend also say why it cannot apply to tidal waters?

Sir K. Joseph: To apply it to tidal waters would involve new legislation. Of course, the beauty of the sea cannot be enhanced and does not need to be protected. The procedure leading to designation is a lengthy one and the consultations are going on.

Mr. Woodnutt: But can my hon. Friend say if the Act specifically excludes tidal waters, and would he not agree that it is possible to spoil them if, for example, someone wished to put a bridge across them?

Mr. Callaghan: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the Act passed by his own Government to prevent the pollution of the sea by oil? Does he not know that the Solent has been ruined for months at a time and that it is ridiculous to say that tidal waters do not need protecting?

Sir K. Joseph: I was speaking, obviously, in the sense that land may need to be protected from undesirable development on it.

Development Districts

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, whether the special needs of areas scheduled under the Local Employment Act will be taken into account in the curtailment of local authority schemes.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister bear in mind particularly that the local authorities, including county councils, in these areas, by the work that they provide, make an important contribution towards the alleviation of unemployment? Does his reply mean that he will scrutinise every

scheme carefully with these considerations in mind?

Mr. Brooke: I will certainly take into account the unemployment situation in the development districts.

HOUSING

Slum Clearance and Housing Schemes

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to what extent loan sanctions for housing schemes will be reduced in the next 12 months; and what tests he will apply in determining whether to refuse loan sanction.

Mr. Sylvester: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is his estimate of the reduction of loan sanctions for local authority housing schemes in the next 12 months; and on what grounds he will refuse loan sanction.

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a detailed statement on the effects the Government's recently announced economy measures will have on housing in general and slum clearance in particular.

Mr. Brooke: At the end of June local authorities and new towns in England and Wales had 123,000 houses and flats under construction, 4,600 more than a year ago, and many of them were complaining that shortages of building labour were delaying completions. The first thing, therefore, is to get these finished, and also the 47,000 in tenders approved but not yet started. I shall slow down the rate at which I approve further tenders, particularly in areas where housing need appears less urgent, but I cannot say by how much it will be necessary to do so.

Mr. Swingler: Does not the Minister realise that that is an absolutely deplorable announcement, as he has refused to take any action to stop luxury building and to divert building labour from enormous office blocks, and so on, but is now announcing that he is to cut the most urgent part of the programme, namely, the provision of homes for the people, which is essential to the development of productive industry and the mobility of labour?


Will he not immediately reconsider his announcement as the programme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is supposed to promote productive industry, must have as its base a large-scale housing programme?

Mr. Brooke: I am very anxious to continue the large-scale housing programme. The hon. Member must be unaware that the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week included severe measures against speculative building of various kinds, which are almost certain to slow it down. My concern with housing is to get the large number of houses now under construction finished as soon as possible, because a house half built is of no use to anybody.

Mr. Sylvester: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will cause great dismay in my industrial town where the majority of the houses were built during the Industrial Revolution and are hardly fit to live in? He has not answered the latter part of my Question about on what grounds he will refuse loan sanction.

Mr. Brooke: I said that I would have to slow down the rate at which I approve tenders, particularly in areas where the housing needs appeared to be less urgent. I am extremely anxious that those of first priority, slum clearance, for instance, should carry on.

Mr. Lewis: Why, then, did not the Minister answer the last part of my Question which was on that point? If he is to slow down where the housing need is not so great, will he give an assurance that he proposes to take some definite action to assist where there is a housing need? Will he give an assurance that there will be further financial assistance, or increased subsidy, or some other positive step to help those slum areas which are in urgent housing need?

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) has not read the Housing Bill, now before Parliament, which would increase the subsidies available to those authorities most in need of further money.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does not the Government's policy mean that the building industry is overloaded and that unneces-

nary building is to be rebuked but that necessary building like housing is to be positively hindered? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to specify which are the areas in which the action he describes will be taken?

Mr. Brooke: It is fairly well known which are the areas where the housing need is most urgent—the big cities in particular.

Mr. Stewart: Does that mean that the rural areas will be those which will suffer?

Mr. Brooke: No. We shall examine all the programmes of all the authorities concerned. It is no use my continuing to approve large programmes when the local authorities have under construction great numbers of houses which they cannot finish for sheer lack of building labour.

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a detailed statement on his recent tour of slum clearance areas and housing development schemes.

Mr. Brooke: I have been making it my business to visit local authorities with substantial slum clearance problems, to see for myself and to discuss their progress on the spot, and I intend to resume these visits next month. I have no detailed statement to make, but I have a clear appreciation of the tremendous effort entailed in closing or clearing nearly 60,000 slum dwellings a year and rehousing their inhabitants, and I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to it.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having taken the trouble to go round some of these areas, but do not the visits he has already made make it clear to him that one reason why local authorities cannot get labour to carry out slum clearance and other housing schemes is that this labour power is being used on unnecessary speculative building? Is he not aware that the Chancellor's statement will not in any way affect the wasteful building but will, in fact, mean that there will be still further hold-ups in necessary building and the clearance of the slums? Will he take some positive action to help the


local authorities in their position arising from the effects of that statement?

Mr. Brooke: First, I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman how much I enjoyed my extremely interesting visit last week to the borough he represents. Having said that, however, I would add that I take the very opposite view to his about what is likely to happen following my right hon. and learned Friend's statement last week.

Mr. M. Stewart: But the Chancellor's statement, the higher Bank Rate and the refusal of loan sanction will not help local authorities very much, will they?

Mr. Brooke: I explained in answer to a previous Question what we intend to do about the housing programme. I was referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) who insinuated, quite incorrectly, that the Chancellor's proposals would not bite at all on the private sector.

Mr. Lewis: Of course they will not.

Building Societies (Advances)

Mr. A. Evans: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now bring up to date the account required of him by subsection (7) of Section 2 of the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, and send it to the Comptroller and Auditor General, so that a report may be made to Parliament.

Mr. Brooke: I hope shortly to send to the Comptroller and Auditor General the detailed account for 1960–61.

Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will bring that account up to date and not just limit it to the end of the last financial year? He appreciates, I suppose, that the advances to the building societies have been suspended; would he not agree, therefore, that it would be sensible to take the account up to the date of suspension?

Mr. Brooke: I have a statutory duty here which I am carrying out, but the hon. Member has also put down a Parliamentary Question for Written Answer, in answer to which I shall give him the latest figures I have. The scheme, of

course, has not been suspended yet; all I have done is to give six months' notice of its suspension.

Overcrowding

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will request two appropriate borough councils in the London County Council's area and in the extra-Metropolitan area, respectively, to institute inquiries, or to supply him with already available information, in respect of the prevailing incidence of gross overcrowding, the causes and results of eviction, the particular incidence of overcrowding due to immigration, and the effect on rents for rooms arising from the rents for accommodation charged to immigrants.

Mr. Brooke: Local authorities affected by these problems in the Greater London area already know a good deal about them. What is needed is action, and I am sure that authorities will make use of the powers in the new Housing Bill to deal with overcrowded houses as soon as it becomes law.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister appreciate that although these local councils may have this information, it is highly desirable that hon. Members should also have it? As it is only his Department that can secure the information for the four different boroughs to which I have referred, will he not reconsider this matter with a view to enlightening hon. Members on the cause of the overcrowding?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman will find that a great deal of information is coming out as the detailed census reports are made available.

Mr. Sorensen: May I press the Minister further on this point and ask that for the convenience of hon. Members he will go a bit further than he has done and secure this information for their enlightenment?

Mr. Brooke: I always seek to give the House as much information as I have, but I do not think that a specific inquiry from me addressed to a couple of boroughs—

Mr. Sorensen: Four.

Mr. Brooke: —would bring out much more than is already known. Each borough is fairly well informed of the amount of overcrowding, and its causes, in that borough.

Decontrol

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, following the recent survey revealing that 250,000 houses a year have been decontrolled in England by death, removal or other change of tenant since the Rent Act began to operate, and in view of the fact that such rents have now trebled, if he will now take steps to stop decontrol on a change of tenant.

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir.

Mr. Allaun: Does not this creeping decontrol mean that, three years hence, 40 per cent. of all houses controlled before the Rent Act came into operation will have become decontrolled—a far higher proportion than we were led to expect? Will the Minister tell the House what young married couples or workers forced to take jobs in other towns are to do in those circumstances?

Mr. Brooke: I would judge that up to the present about one-third of all the houses that were under control before the Rent Act came into operation were now decontrolled, but the hon. Member's Question asked me to take steps to stop decontrol on change of tenant. I must point out to him that the principal effect of that would be to diminish the total number of houses coming on the market to let.

Mr. C. Royle: May I be a little more modest than my hon. Friend and ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can take one small step forward by bringing in an amendment to maintain control when the change takes place between members of the family already living in the house?

Mr. Brooke: The law does maintain control in certain circumstances now, but if the definition became as wide as to include any member of the family some houses might never get decontrolled.

Cardiff

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what estimate he has made of the effect of the increase in Bank Rate on rehousing in the city of Cardiff, in view of the fact that the city council has suspended housing loans to would-be purchasers, with a consequent hold-up in housing schemes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brooke: I understand that the city council has not taken any decision as to its future lending policy. The council intends to review this in September and will not consider any fresh applications for loans in the meantime. There is no reason why would-be purchasers should not approach building societies.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as he must be, that the sub-committee of Cardiff City Council—if not the council itself—has refused to entertain further applications for loans, except on the part of applications that have already been made? Is it the Minister's view, and his desire, to encourage loans under the 1959 Act or to discourage them in view of this panic measure?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that Cardiff City Council has taken a panic measure because it decided not to endorse a decision of its sub-committee. It is the decision of the city council that matters. Most local authorities in Wales, so far as I know, are carrying on. Cardiff City Council has decided to pause and not to reach any future decision as to policy until September.

Mr. Callaghan: I hold in my hand a cutting from a local newspaper which says that until 6th September no new applications for loans will be considered but that those in hand might be granted mortgages. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the process of buying and selling is going on all the time and that the effect of this measure will be to stop a number of transactions which are now reaching maturity.

Mr. Brooke: I am not responsible for a decision of the Cardiff City Council. It has not taken a long-term decision but has decided not to entertain any further


applications during the month of August and to reach its final conclusion in September.

Immigrants

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what special action he is taking to assist local authorities in areas where immigration has made housing problems more difficult.

Mr. Brooke: I have taken steps in the Housing Bill now before Parliament to give local authorities additional powers which will help them to deal with houses let in lodgings where the arrival of new immigrants may have added to existing difficulties. Local authorities assist the re-housing of settled immigrant families in the course of their ordinary housing activities.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that will not make a ha'p'orth of difference to the local authorities? Whatever views may be held of the Government's immigration policy, if they have one, is not this a further example of how the Government create a problem, do nothing to solve it, and then pass the buck to the local authorities most directly concerned?

Mr. Brooke: I hope that the council of the borough which the hon. Member represents, and which I am hoping to visit in the course of my slum clearance tour, will make vigorous use of the powers under Part II of the Housing Bill when it becomes law. Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that we should give differential housing assistance in cases of coloured immigrants? Surely anything of that sort would exacerbate the kind of racial tension which is just what we want to avoid.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of immigration should surely be related to immigrants from any part of the world and not necessarily coloured immigrants? In Birmingham and London there are immigrants from the North-East, from Lancashire and other places, all of whom present great housing difficulties for the local population?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, I am not in my own mind making any distinction on the ground of colour.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that those local authorities which are trying to tackle this problem of relieving the country of a certain amount of racial tension all very much deplore the fact that in this question of housing let in lodgings, which is the one focal point where most of the trouble arises from overcrowding, particularly of coloured and Irish immigrants, the Minister has lost a wonderful opportunity of assisting people who are trying to do good? Why will he not allow local authorities to have the power to regulate the number of lodgers who go into a house before these lodgings deteriorate into common lodging houses?

Mr. Brooke: If the hon. Member will read the provisions of the Housing Bill, he will find that it gives the local authorities very much what they are anxious to have. It brings about an enormous improvement in the existing powers of local authorities.

BOARD OF ADMIRALTY

Mr. Cronin: asked the Prime Minister what further consideration he has given to arranging for the Civil Lord to preside over the Board of Admiralty, instead of one of the Sea Lords, in the absence of the First Lord.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have looked at this matter again. I am satisfied that any objections that might be raised to the existing arrangements are theoretical and are not relevant to the way in which the business of the Board of Admiralty is in fact conducted.

Mr. Cronin: Can the Prime Minister give one good reason why an admiral should take precedence over a Minister responsible to this House for the conduct of the affairs of his own Ministry?

The Prime Minister: Formal meetings of the Board as a whole are held only periodically. Since my noble Friend assumed office there have been no Board meetings held in his absence. The order of names follows that of the Board Patent. I do not think that this can be a very serious grievance because, anyway, hon. Members have waited ten years to raise it.

Mr. Gaitskell: If the Prime Minister is suggesting that the Board of


Admiralty is going to suffer the same fate as the Board of Trade and will never meet at all, then my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) will not mind very much. What we are concerned about is the principle of Ministerial responsibility. May I ask the Prime Minister if he will say whether or not, in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Civil Lord is responsible for what is done by the Admiralty?

The Prime Minister: Of course he has the full Ministerial responsibility should the First Lord be absent.

Mr. Gaitskell: Why should the Prime Minister use the phrase "Ministerial responsibility" if, as I gather from what he said on the last occasion, this is in some way limited in his mind? Will the Prime Minister clear up this point? Is it not the case that a Minister is responsible for everything that happens in the Admiralty, as in other Departments?

The Prime Minister: And the First Lord is responsible. Should he happen to be absent, at a formal meeting this follows the tradition that the First Sea Lord takes the chair. But, of course, political decisions and full responsibility rests with the First Lord, and if he were absent and not able to be consulted—which is very unlikely—the final decision would rest with the Civil Lord.

Mr. Shinwell: Why should the Prime Minister be so diffident about this? After all, is he not aware that the Army Council is always presided over by a Minister, as is the Air Council? Why should there be a difference at the Admiralty?

The Prime Minister: It is, of course, a purely historical difference. The Army Council and the Air Council were set up by Parliament. The Board of Admiralty is a set of gentlemen whose duty it is to carry out the functions of the Lord High Admiral.

DOCUMENTS (SECURITY)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the methods of classifying documents of interest to potential enemies

are sufficient to enable spot checks carried out for security reasons to detect immediately their absence from the files; and whether departmental staffs are large enough to ensure the effective operation of the system.

The Prime Minister: Each Department of Government is responsible for the proper custody of the classified documents in its charge, and for ensuring that adequate staff exists to carry out the necessary checks. I am satisfied that Departments are conscious of this responsibility. The classification of documents is one of the aspects of security in the public service which I understand the Radcliffe Committee will be considering.

Dame Irene Ward: While regretting that I could not quite hear my right hon. Friend's reply, has he noticed that in certain cases recently where prosecutions have been taken against employees the employees seem to have been able to extract documents without their absence being noticed? What I am really asking my right hon. Friend is whether he thinks that under the system the documents are properly numbered? If there were a spot check, would the absence of the documents be noted? If so, is it not peculiar that in so many circumstances where there have been prosecutions the people have had these documents out and their absence does not appear to have been observed?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asked me a question about classification. That is one point. A separate point is to ensure the proper custody of the documents. That is the duty of Departments, and any errors are very much to be regretted. I am hoping that the Radcliffe Report will enable us to find methods of tightening up anything that is amiss.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the failure of negotiations on the ending of nuclear test explosions, if he will now give an undertaking that the United Kingdom will not resume such tests for a period of at least 12 months; and if he will make a personal appeal to Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev to join with him in declaring


a continuation of the present voluntary moratorium for that period.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) on 4th July.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are powerful forces pressing for a resumption of the test explosions, and that if on either side they prevail this will lead to the arms race getting completely out of control? Since this may be mankind's last chance, will the Prime Minister take this initiative, for an example by one side would influence the other?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter which needs very careful consideration and I am not sure that anything would be achieved at this stage by a personal approach to Mr. Khrushchev. We are still carrying on the negotiations at Geneva and we have not given up hope that progress may be made.

Mr. M. Foot: Does the Prime Minister's answer mean that in this matter he is not prepared to take any initiative separate from agreements which may be reached with the United States of America? Does he not think it would be much better if this country were to make it absolutely clear that we are opposed to the starting of these tests in any circumstances?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think we dealt with this before. If one of the countries were to say that it would carry on the voluntary moratorium indefinitely there would be the end of any hope of making an agreement.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is it not the case that the vast majority of our population are against the resumption of the poisoning of the atmosphere by nuclear tests? If the Prime Minister gave the suggested undertaking, would it not at least give him an opportunity of saying something with which the majority of the people agree?

The Prime Minister: I think, if I may press the point again, that so long as the negotiations are continuing it would be very unwise to make a unilateral declaration of that kind.

COMMON MARKET

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister what assurances he has re-received from President de Gaulle since his speech at Metz concerning the concessions needed by the United Kingdom on the European Free Trade Association, agriculture and the Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister: So far as I am aware, President de Gaulle made no reference in any public speech during his recent visit to Metz to the subject of my hon. Friend's Question. In any case, any communication between President de Gaulle and myself on these matters would be confidential.

Sir C. Osborne: Without wishing to add to my right hon. Friend's great burdens in this matter, since it has been publicly stated on more than one occasion that the French President said he would not give any concessions on these three important issues, and since we say that we cannot join unless concessions are made to us, may I ask whether that does not make negotiations impossible?

The Prime Minister: I have no knowledge of any such statement by the Head of the French Government. If and when we make an application, as we hope to do, it will be studied by the six Governments as a whole.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it true that the Prime Minister is planning to have a meeting at an early date with General de Gaulle?

The Prime Minister: I have no arrangement for such a meeting, although I would frankly say that there probably will be a meeting of Heads of Governments, not necessarily in connection with this problem but in connection with the wider European problems which confront us.

Sir J. Lucas: Would the Prime Minister remind the President that 335,000 overseas members of the Commonwealth fell fighting side by side with the French in the two world wars and some are commemorated at the Vimy Ridge Canadian memorial? Will he also remind him that there is nothing


like having old friends and keeping them?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. What we hope to achieve—and the problem is whether we can achieve it—is the still greater unity and strengthening of these old friendships.

GERMANY AND BERLIN

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister, if he will now propose to President Kennedy, Mr. Khrushchev, President De Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer that some of the United Nations agencies be moved to Berlin and that the United Nations be associated with the control of the city.

The Prime Minister: The Foreign Ministers of the Western Powers are meeting in Paris at the end of the week to consider their common approach to the present problem of Germany and Berlin. I cannot anticipate the nature of their discussions, but I will bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Grimond: I am obliged to the Prime Minister for saying that he will bear this yin mind. Will he recognise that there must be a great deal to be said at this time for associating the United Nations in some way with the Berlin problem, and that possibly this might be a useful method of dealing with the matter of the check points on the roads into the city?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I realise that. I think it comes to this, as in so many things: if there is a will to settle this by negotiation, I believe there are a number of methods, including the one which the hon. Member has suggested, which might help to get a successful agreement. The House debated this matter yesterday. The whole question is: is there a will to make an honest and honourable agreement?

Sir J. Lucas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 93, which is in my name and is a similar Question to this, was transferred to the Lord Privy Seal. Could it not be answered as well?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot help about that. The transfer is nothing to do with me.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that President Reuther was convinced that the first step towards showing everybody's good faith was to have free elections in every sector of Berlin, and could that be kept in mind as a suggestion when the Powers meet?

The Prime Minister: Of course, that is the proposal we made as long ago as the very first discussion we had four or five years ago. It would be very agreeable if it could take place.

Mr. A. Henderson: Can we take it that the Prime Minister, when he bears in mind the suggestion contained in the Question, will also bear in mind the desirability of the United Nations being associated with the administration of the city, apart altogether from the possibility of transferring United Nations agencies?

The Prime Minister: All these questions are relevant when real negotiations can be arranged.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman has referred, I think with general acceptance, to the view that a great many of these matters might be settled if there were only the will to settle them on both sides. Is it not the case that both sides have declared their willingness to negotiate, that one side has made proposals which are unacceptable to us, and would not the real test of willingness to negotiate now involve our making sonic counter-proposals of our own?

The Prime Minister: We answered fully in the notes from the three Western Powers the proposals made by the Soviet Government. We discussed this at some length yesterday, and I think it would not be wise for me to add to the position that the Government are at present taking.

Mr. Marsh: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that one of the problems with which we are faced is the determination of the West to insist upon free elections in Berlin and in East and West Germany? Does the Prime Minister agree that this may be highly desirable but that it seems almost impossible of achievement?

The Prime Minister: I think that is too pessimistic a view. It is certainly desirable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for the first week after the Recess?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. It is proposed that the House should resume after the Summer Recess on Tuesday, 24th October.
The proposed business will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 24TH OCTOBER—Consideration of Amendments, which are expected to be received from another place, to the Housing Bill.
Afterwards, a debate will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on a subject proposed by the Opposition, which will be announced later.
WEDNESDAY, 25TH OCTOBER—Debate on the Annual Report and Accounts of the National Coal Board for 1960.
THURSDAY, 26TH OCTOBER—It is proposed to meet at 11 a.m. and Questions will be taken until 12 noon.
It is expected that Prorogation will take place after Questions and that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday, 31st October, at 11.30 a.m.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask, with rather special emphasis this year, the usual question? Will the Government be prepared to recall Parliament if either the international situation or the economic situation, both of which are somewhat threatening, require it, and will they consider seriously any representations which may be made by the Opposition to this end?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. There are powers under Standing Order No. 112 for the House to be recalled during the Recess if it is represented to Mr. Speaker by the Government that the public interest requires an earlier meeting. I give the undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman requires, namely, that, if there are representations and if, after the matter is weighed by the Government, it is thought that this procedure should be put into force, it will be put into force in what is, in many ways, a very serious and important year.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend will recall that, earlier in the Session, he gave an assurance that there would be a day in the summer for the discussion of the Reports of the Estimates Committee and Public Account Committee. This has not happened. I gather from the business he has just announced for the week after we resume that there will be no opportunity then. What will happen to the day which has been lost for discussion of these Select Committee Reports?

Mr. Butler: There will not be time in the overspill period, but I give an undertaking to my right hon. Friend that the day will not be lost. We shall try to find time in the new Session which starts very soon afterwards.

Mr. Popplewell: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Annual Report and Accounts of the Transport Commission have been out for many weeks. Can he give us any idea of when he may be able to provide time to discuss this very important matter, in view of the changes now contemplated and taking place in the Commission's affairs? Will he provide time when we reassemble in the new Session, or even before the House rises?

Mr. Butler: That, also, will have to be a matter for the new Session.

Sir G. Nicholson: Reverting to the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), is it not true to say that, in effect, the day has been stolen? Is it not quite without precedent for the Leader of the House to say that a day which was pledged in one Session should be kept, as it were, on ice and that the debt should be repaid in a subsequent Session? How long can this go on? One might pile up a series of stolen days for years.

Mr. Butler: I think that my hon. Friend will feel satisfied that, out of the great bounty of Her Majesty's Government, the day will be available within a very short period of what I think he would desire.

Mr. Grimond: May I make use of the Leader of the House as a sort of go-between or conduit pipe to find out when we may expect to know the subject for


the day in October which he says is not yet fixed?

Mr. Butler: That depends on Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the Leader of the House prepared to keep the House informed of progress at the Geneva Conference in discussions about Laos during the Recess? Shall we have an opportunity of discussing the matter when we come back in October?

Mr. Butler: It really depends on the choice by the Opposition for the day immediately we come back. If not in that way, there will be the debate on the Address to start immediately after we resume, very early in November, and that will give an opportunity.

Mr. Denis Howell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that. a fortnight ago, he expressed concern about matters affecting youth and undertook to consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, since when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has singled out the Wolfenden Report on Sport and the Community for specially regrettable treatment? When are we likely to have a discussion as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's talks with his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Butler: It is perfectly clear from what I have said that it cannot, I fear, be before we adjourn, and it cannot, I think, be immediately we resume; so it will have to be after that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Since we are living in an age of nuclear weapons and rockets, when a dangerous war situation may develop very quickly, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this country will not be landed in any kind of war without the will of Parliament?

Mr. Butler: It is most unusual—in fact, it is without precedent—for Parliament not to be associated with a decision of that magnitude.

Mr. Woodburn: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have given up all idea of tinkering with the House of Lords?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I do not quite understand the inference to be drawn from the right hon. Gentleman's ques-

tion, but the matter remains on the Order Paper.

Mr. Thorpe: If the Leader of the House is troubled by inferences, may I put it expressly? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that events yesterday make it all the more urgent that the question of House of Lords reform should be debated by the House, and that perhaps some reform should be considered by the House? If not, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman joined that august body?

Mr. Butler: I am in no hurry to do the latter. As regards the former, the Government have always thought it a good idea to proceed on the lines we suggested, and we were sorry that Her Majesty's Opposition felt that they could not join in that project. There has not been time to carry it through at the end of the Session, and it would certainly be rather difficult to do in the overlap, because there must be messages between both Houses. Therefore, it must be left to the new Session.

Mr. Awbery: Are we to have a discussion on the affairs of Malta before the introduction of the new Constitution?

Mr. Butler: I must have notice of that, and then I will inform the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gaitskell: Reverting to the question of House of Lords reform, are the Government prepared, while the House is in Recess, to reconsider the question of the terms of reference?

Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have a conversation with us, we shall be very glad to have it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, however we may have been compelled to act as we did yesterday, the result is anomalous, that there is a very serious anomaly which the House of Commons ought to deal with at as early a date as possible? It must be a very long time since the House of Commons accepted as a Member of this honourable House a man in regard to whom the only really non-controversial thing one can say is that the electors of Bristol, South-East did not want him.

Mr. Butler: I think that we are all aware of the constitutional issues involved. We should not be good Parliamentarians


if we were not. I think that that is the best answer I can give the hon. Gentleman.

KENYA (MR. JOMO KENYATTA)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short statement.
The Governor of Kenya has sent a despatch to me in which he has informed me that he has decided that if there is no deterioration in the security position, Jomo Kenyatta should be moved to Kiambu about the middle of August and that his restriction order should be revoked a few days thereafter. I have informed the Governor that his decision has she full support of Her Majesty's Government.
I am laying a copy of the Governor's despatch today as a Command Paper. The Governor's decision is supported by all the members, including the official members of his Council of Ministers as well as by the senior members of the police and the Administration, and the Kikuyu who stood by the Government during the emergency.
I believe that this decision, difficult though it is, is in the best interests of all the peoples of Kenya and that it should be taken now.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that the decision to release Mr. Kenyatta will receive general agreement on this side of the House? Is he further aware that we are all glad to hear that the decision is supported by such a wide body of opinion? May we take it that the Government's decision is supported by their own supporters? Is it not the general wish that Mr. Kenyatta should now place his exceptional talents and abilities at the disposal of all the races in Kenya so that that country may be built up into a land in which everyone can live without fear?
If this is to be achieved, what action does the Colonial Secretary propose to take about the resolution, passed in the Legislative Assembly a week or two ago, asking that the provision in the Lancaster House constitution that people who have served a term of imprisonment of more than two years should be for-

bidden to stand for the Legislative Assembly?
Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to act on that resolution and to remove from Mr. Kenyatta all the disabilities which now attach to him so that he can take his full place in public life if it is the desire of the people of Kenya that he should do so?

Mr. Macleod: The reason why I have made this statement now is that it is only now that I am able to stand at this Box and to say that not only the Governor, his senior Ministers and the members of the Administration, but also the Central Province Advisory Council, agrees with this decision. I therefore think that it is right that this decision should be taken now.
At the moment Mr. Kenyatta is doubly disqualified from being a member of the Legislative Council—first, because he is in restriction, and, secondly, because he has served a period of imprisonment exceeding two years and, therefore, comes within the restriction Order in Council. The first of those two is, or will be in three weeks' time or something like that, removed.
Question No. 45 on the Order Paper, put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), refers directly to this matter and my Answer to it, which will appear in HANSARD tomorrow, is that we have studied the debate and the proposals and the suggestion made that this Order in Council should be amended, but that Her Majesty's Government have no proposal to make in relation to it.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will cause grave concern among Africans and Europeans in Kenya and in other territories in Africa and among a great many people in this country as well?

Mr. Macleod: I am certain that, when my hon. and gallant Friend studies the despatch, which, I hope, is now available in the Vote Office, and realises, as is clear from my statement, that the Central Province Advisory Council, which consists of the leading chiefs of the Kikuyu loyalists, thinks that this is a decision which should be taken now, he will genuinely find that most of his anxieties are removed.

Mr. Callaghan: Why do the Government behave in this timid and hesitant way? We have been through all this process about Mr. Kenyatta's release. Are we to go through the same process about his full readmission to public life? Surely the Colonial Secretary can carry his followers with him to this extent, that there is general recognition in Kenya that Kenyatta's influence is of such a character that it should be openly expressed through the normal processes of Parliament and the Legislative Assembly out there if that is the desire of the people. Why do not the Government make up their mind and cease to be so timorous about their extreme lunatic wing?

Mr. Macleod: That is a typically offensive contribution to this discussion. There is no question of timidity here. I could easily have waited four or five days until the House rose and said nothing about it.

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman gave a promise.

Mr. Macleod: I deliberately chose to come to the House and to tell hon. Members of this decision before the House rose.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, more than one opinion is held in relation to the other matter which he raised, even within the political panties in Kenya. In my view, having studied the proposal put forward, the original Motion and the Amendment to it which was finally carried in the Kenya Legislative Council, the Answer which I have given to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell is the right attitude for the Government to adopt.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend has previously refused to release Jomo Kenyatta on the ground of danger to security. Is he now telling the House that he is confident that there will be no danger to security as a result of this step? if it is shown that he has miscalculated the danger, will he give an assurance that steps will he immediately taken to put under arrest Kenyatta and any other leaders of the revived Mau Mau gangs?

Mr. Macleod: Everyone knows, of course, that equally there is a risk attached to action and a risk

attached to inaction in this matter. Paragraph 6 of the Governor's despatch, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will presently be able to read, carefully spells out the security position. Naturally, if the estimate turns out to be wrong, all the forces which could be made available would be used in the interests of law and order. Of that there is no question.

Mr. Brockway: Is the Secretary of State aware how deeply many of us welcome the announcement which he has made, although we feel that it is belated? Contrary to the view which has been expressed on the benches opposite, will he confirm that only a minority in Kenya is against the overwhelming opinion of Africans, Europeans, Asians and now the Government themselves who wish to see Mr. Kenyatta released?
I should like to clear up this point, because it has not been made clear. Do the Government propose to permit Mr. Kenyatta to function in the Legislature, and will they give him opportunities to function within the wider federation of Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda when they Federation is formed?

Mr. Macleod: It can only be a matter of opinion as to the number of people who support or oppose any particular decision. For the reasons which I have given in my statement and to which I have added in answer to supplementary questions, I have never before felt able to put this problem for decision to my colleagues. In view of the Governor's despatch, which I commend to the whole House, we are agreed that this is the right time to take this step.
In case what I said earlier is not clear, let me now make it clear that the Order in Council remains. Therefore, it is not possible for Mr. Kenyatta, who, I think, is not even on the electoral roll, to stand for or to be a member of the Legislative Council unless and until that Order in Council is amended. My Answer to Question No. 45 today makes it clear that we have no proposals for amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: When will the right hon. Gentleman have them?

Mr. Fisher: What my right hon. Friend said about the reaction to this step of the loyal Kikuyu is most encouraging. Can he give any estimate of the degree of European support in Kenya, which, I believe, is considerable, for this decision and which—I say this to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—I believe is supported by the great majority of hon. Members on these benches?

Mr. Macleod: Obviously, I cannot give an exact estimate. I think that the newspaper which is most generally thought to represent the Right-wing settler view in Kenya was the first to call for Mr. Kenyatta's release. Throughout this there have been odd eddies and currents of different opinions among all the races. It is, therefore, quite impossible to make an estimate. What I believe is true is that opinion has crystallised a good deal on this matter recently, as I think is made clear by the Governor's despatch and by my statement.

Mr. Dugdale: While welcoming Mr. Kenyatta's release, may I ask the Colonial Secretary whether he will confirm that in India and Ghana discriminatory laws were removed at a fairly early date, making it possible for two men who had been in prison to lead those countries?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that that is so. Many countries in the Commonwealth have such discrimination. It is certainly rare and I think that it may be unique in the Commonwealth that Kenya's discrimination in this ordinance is permanent.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not most disturbing that the request which is the subject of my Question No. 45 should be made at all by the Kenya Legislative Council at this moment? Is it not a fact that the bestial cruelties and revolting rites of Mau Mau place it on an entirely different footing from any other nationalist movement, and was not Jomo Kenyatta convicted, and, as far as I know, is the unrepentant manager of Mau Mau? Would it not, therefore, be outrageous and utterly degrading to our Parliamentary institutions—one of the glories of the Commonwealth—if this man were allowed to enter the Kenya

Legislative Council while we have any responsibility for its affairs, and, still worse, to take office under the Crown?

Mr. Macleod: I think, with respect to my hon. Friend, that I have answered his Question No. 45 on the Order Paper today in the sense, presumably, from that long supplementary question, in which he wished me to answer it. I think that it is right that, after having studied the matter carefully and Her Majesty's Government having given this matter full consideration, we should not put forward proposals for amending this particular ordinance.

Mr. Callagham: The Minister has said twice that he has no proposals to bring forward for meeting the requests of the Legislative Assembly that this disability should be removed. Can he tell us what conditions will need to be fulfilled before he will be ready to bring forward proposals?

Mr. Macleod: The resolution finally passed did not, in fact, specify what the hon. Member has just said. It did not in fact, indicate in what way the ordinance should be amended, and, in any case, as I am sure the whole House will realise, if there were to be an amendment of the ordinance, it would not be for one man, but would be of general application. I am sure that the whole House would agree about that, whatever our differences may be. So far as the rest is concerned, all I can say is that Her Majesty's Government have considered this particular resolution which was passed in the Legislative Council in Kenya, and have come to the conclusion which I have announced this afternoon.

Mr. Callaghan: Cannot the Minister answer my question?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We really cannot debate this now. There is no Question before the House.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

House, at its rising on Friday, to adjourn till Tuesday, 24th October.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL INJURIES

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: It is a considerable time since the House discussed the administration of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, and we on this side feel that the time has come to give closer attention to this very important subject. Its importance cannot be over-emphasised, particularly having regard to the number of persons who daily come within its provisions.
In the factories and workshops of this country, there are approximately, year in and year out, about 170,000 accidents a year. In 1959, there were over 174,000 such accidents, and in the mining industry there are approximately 200,000 persons who sustain injuries in the course of their employment. While it is true to say, fortunately, that the majority are not severely disabled, nevertheless, 200,000 workmen lose more than three days' work each a year as a result of accidents in their work. In addition, we must take into consideration the facts that every year approximately 3,000 miners are certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis and, further, that large numbers suffer from other forms of industrial disease.
This demonstrates the urgent need to improve safety regulations in industry, and to improve safety measures which will bring down this casualty list. The tragedies, the suffering, the loss of wages and the loss of production are such that both management and men should do all in their power to see that the necessary safety precautions are taken, so as to bring down to a great extent the figures which meet us year in and year out.
Apart from the accidents in industry, many men are killed. In 1959, 589 men

were killed in the factories and workshops and in the mining industry there were about 300 to 400. The figures vary from year to year, but approximately that is the figure. In addition, there are about 800 persons who die as a result of pneumoconiosis. These are appalling figures, and though, in some industries, the death rate is declining, the fact remains that it is a very high rate. When there is a colliery explosion or an industrial calamity, there is always a wave of public sympathy for the bereaved. Funds are opened, to which generous donations are given to assist the dependents.
Indeed, we had an illustration last year arising out of the terrible accident which occurred at Six Bells Colliery, and I know that I am voicing the opinion of the miners and of the mining communities when I say that they were deeply appreciative of all that was done to help that small mining community. Thanks are due to the Western Mail and other section of the Press, to the B.B.C. and I.T.V. for all that was done to assist that community in Monmouthshire.
I would remind the House that every day men are being killed in industry. Every day, men are dying from industrial diseases, in very many cases, a long and lingering death. Their families invariably become impoverished as a result of years of illness and, ultimately, the death of a man suffering from an industrial disease. That brings me at once to the rates of benefit, though it is not my intention to dwell on this matter today. I would only say to the Minister that he had a golden opportunity a few months ago of giving more adequate benefits to the industrially disabled, especially having regard to the fact that he reduced the industrial injuries contribution.
Even if the Minister did not choose to increase the benefits to the industrially disabled, he had an excellent opportunity of exercising his powers under Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, whereby he could have provided cars for the lonely paraplegic disabled workmen but he did not do so. He could have increased the rates of benefit under the workmen's compensation legislation.
In any event, I hope that today we can get an assurance from the right hon.
Gentleman that he will do at least something for the paraplegic disabled. Even a cost of £2 million would not break the Industrial Injuries Fund. These paraplegic men are lonely. They have to go out on their tricycles along country lanes and often the tricycle may break down. The time has arrived when the industrially injured should be treated in this respect the same as the war pensioner.
It is not, however, my intention to deal with that aspect, but rather to deal with the grounds of dissatisfaction among the disabled concerning the present situation. We know that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act cannot be regarded in isolation and that people who receive disablement benefit can receive other benefits under the National Insurance Act. This is one of the factors which has contributed to an improvement under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act as compared with the old workmen's compensation system. Nevertheless, thirteen years' administration of the Act has revealed many anomalies and injustices.
I wish to turn my attention to some of the anomalies. Quite apart from them, we know that in the last thirteen years, conditions in industry have changed. There have been increases in production and we have seen the advance of science and medical knowledge. All these factors make it necessary for us now to review the working of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act in the light of the information at our disposal, which was not available to us thirteen years ago.
In dealing with some of the principal causes of dissatisfaction with the existing industrial injuries scheme, foremost in my mind is the problem of pneumoconiosis. Up to 1959, over 43,000 men were certified to be suffering from this disease. In the pits of South Wales, approximately 15,000 men who work underground are suffering from it. We have to take note of the fact that many thousands of men who come before the medical boards suffering from lung disability have their cases rejected.
The medical boards who examine men suspected of suffering from pneumoconiosis have two functions to perform, first, to diagnose the disease, and secondly, to assess the degree of dis-

ability. The medical profession has divided pneumoconiosis into two distinct categories. The first is called simple pneumoconiosis, which is a rather unfortunate term, and the second or more advanced stage of the disease is massive fibrosis of the lungs.
The so-called simple stage is subdivided into three categories, each of which is a recognised pattern on a radiograph. The majority of experts appear to accept the view that category one does not, in the majority of cases, mean disablement. Therefore, the medical boards not only do not make an award, but they go to the extent of telling a man that he does not have the disease.
The published figures of rejections do not distinguish between men whose lungs are completely clear and those with category one readings. Thus, two men may go before a medical board. The X-ray shows that the lungs of one of them are clear. In the other case it it shows some dust retention upon the lung. The man departs from the medical board, however, in the belief that he has no dust upon the lung. This is one of the trouble factors in the coalfields of South Wales, if not in other coalfields.
What happens is that men begin to suffer from shortage of breath. It is not severe, but there is some discomfort. Their medical attendant advises them to be X-rayed at the local hospital. As a result of the X-ray examination, a man is told that he has some dust upon the lung. He is then recommended to go for examination by the medical board under the pneumoconiosis scheme. If, however, the board's examination reveals that there is very little dust upon the lung, the man is not told this and in many cases he leaves the board under the impression that there is no lung disability whatever.
This gives rise to a great deal of irritation and discontent in the coalfields. The X-ray from the local hospital shows that a man has dust upon the lung, but the medical board, whose job it is to deal with these cases, says nothing about it. One can understand the feelings of the men. Naturally, they worry. A man wants to feel that he is clear in health, but he knows that the X-ray from the local hospital shows that he has some dust upon the lung.
Quite apart from that, there is the question of prevention. The National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board are doing all in their power to warn men in that condition against working underground. We are getting quite a large number of young men who are declared to be suffering in the early stages of pneumoconiosis. In the interests both of safety and of health, it is all the more necessary that men should be informed when they have even only a small dust retention upon the lung.
I hope that as a result of this debate we will have an assurance from the Minister that he will take measures, as he has power to do under the Act, to ensure that even though the medical board in some cases does not regard the condition as one of disablement, men who are in category one and in the very early stage of the disease will at least be informed that they have some dust retention upon the lung.
If the Minister had some dust upon his lung and I had none, I imagine that that would indicate at least some loss of faculty on his part. Provided that our ages corresponded, his lung condition would be slightly inferior to mine. The provisions of the Act are based upon loss of faculty, and I should have thought that in a case of that kind some loss of faculty would be inevitable. I repeat that when a man is in category one and the X-ray film shows him to have dust upon the lung, he should be informed accordingly, so that those concerned—the Coal Board and the workman himself—can take whatever precautionary measures are possible.
The Minister is not being quite fair to his officials in this matter. The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance deals with millions of cases. I compliment the Ministry upon the efficient way in which it does its job. When one realises the millions of records and cases which have to be dealt with, although there may be difficulties or delays here and there, the Ministry does its job very efficiently. In the mining valleys, however, all the good features of this administration are nullified by the stupid policy of refusing to tell a man when he is in category one, thus creating a controversy which need not arise. No harm would be caused to the Ministry by

telling a man that he was in category one.
That, however, is not the only reason for the trouble with the pneumoconiosis problem. A large number of men in the mining industry suffer from bronchitis and emphysema as well as pneumoconiosis, and I submit—and on this I am medically advised on very good authority by specialists, Dr. Howell and Dr. Meiklejohn, who have made a speciality of this problem—that it is utterly impossible to assess the degree of disablement from pneumoconiosis when a person is suffering from bronchitis and emphysema at the same time as pneumoconiosis. The degree of disability cannot be properly assessed, with the result that the boards adopt to a large measure a certain amount of guesswork, and this is giving rise to a good deal of trouble.
In some cases, the board may give the man the benefit of the doubt. He is complaining of bad chest trouble, some due, perhaps, to emphysema, some due to pneumoconiosis, some proportion due to bronchitis. Sometimes, it is fair to say, from experience of the working of medical boards, that they may be prone to give the workman the benefit of the doubt and he receives benefit in respect of pneumoconiosis. On his death, the board says, "He did not die from the disease."
One can understand the problem which arises here immediately. Here is a man who has been suffering from chest trouble for a period of years, who has been in bed, perhaps, for a long time, suffering from chest trouble, and he is given a certificate that he is suffering from pneumoconiosis. On his death, the board says, "He did not die from pneumoconiosis at all." I am not assuming for one moment that because a man has pneumoconiosis he is bound to die from it, but where a man has chest trouble as the result of bronchitis and pneumoconiosis as well as emphysema, surely in those circumstances, where pneumoconiosis is present, the board should declare that the man is suffering from pneumoconiosis.
It is done in Australia. If a man has bronchitis and pneumoconiosis he is declared to be suffering from pneumoconiosis. It is impossible to dissociate them, at least during lifetime, and, in many cases, on death it is impossible


properly to assess the degree of those three diseases separately.
Further, of course, Dr. Gough, who is an expert, an international figure, on pneumoconiosis, says that many men develop bronchitis as an alternative to pneumoconiosis. They continually cough up dust which they inhale underground, and get rid of it to some extent, but they develop bronchitis. It is noteworthy that bronchitis is more prevalent among miners than it is among any other industrial workers, and it raises a problem in no uncertain way as to the need for an inquiry at least—we have been asking the right hon. Gentleman for an inquiry for some time now—where we have very many men suffering from bronchitis and emphysema as well as from pneumoconiosis.
I must point out, too, that when a person is suffering from tuberculosis as well as pneumoconiosis he is given a certificate accordingly. I put it to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, why should there be a different procedure adopted in respect of tuberculosis from that in respect of bronchitis or emphysema? If a man is suffering from tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis a certificate is issued accordingly. I submit that the same practice should apply where a man is suffering from bronchitis as well as pneumoconiosis.
There is another feature of this problem which is very disquieting. In the South Wales coalfield, in many areas, when the doctors have, on examination, found pneumoconiosis, a death certificate is given, signed by a coroner, that the person died from pneumoconiosis or emphysema accompanied by pneumoconiosis, but when the case goes to the medical board it says, "He has not died from pneumoconiosis at all." I want to point out the confusion which arises in cases of this kind. In the County of Monmouth a different procedure entirely is adopted, it is fair to say, and it is one which can be commended. The coroner does not give a verdict till he has had the report from the medical board.
However, in many parts of the South Wales coalfield, and in other coalfields, this is what happens. A coroner gives a verdict at a local inquest, reports of which appear in the local Press. A

report will say, "John Jones died from pneumoconiosis." There it is. A few weeks later the medical board says, "He has not died from pneumoconiosis." We can imagine the consternation caused to the dead man's widow and dependants, the anxiety which is aroused, the disquiet, in circumstances of this kind.
How very difficult it is for an official to explain to a widow, "Well, you must not take any notice of the inquest. You must not take any notice of reports given at the inquest. You must realise that the medical board, whose job it is to deal with these cases, has given a certificate that your husband has not died from pneumoconiosis."
There is one other feature about pneumoconiosis. There is no right of appeal on diagnosis issues in pneumoconiosis cases. In a dermatitis case, or a beat elbow, or a beat knee case, or some of the other industrial diseases cases, persons can appeal against the decision of a medical board on diagnosis. Not so in pneumoconiosis cases. I doubt whether the ordinary medical tribunal is a competent body to deal with issues of this kind. Nevertheless, I think it fair that it should be possible for appeals to be made in certain circumstances to experts in these diseases, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us an answer on this matter.
I turn now to assessment under the Industrial Injuries Act. We are very concerned with these cases. When a man is declared to be suffering from osteo-arthritis, after, say, a fracture of the shoulder or a leg or an arm, he receives injury benefit for 26 weeks and sometime thereafter. A man has been regularly at his employment and has apparently, a good health record. He may, perhaps, have had a twinge of pain, but miners do not take notice of slight twinges of pain. He receives benefit for a fracture which he has received. The case goes to the medical board which says, "He is suffering from osteoarthritis." He has lost no time at work, until the accident. It is not fair to the Industrial Injuries Fund that the Fund should be saddled with what is, after all, a complaint with which a man has been suffering because of natural causes, but I submit that there are generally many cases where a man has had very little health trouble over the years and


has been working underground and then, after a very bad fracture, receives injury benefit because it is considered that he was suffering from osteo-arthritis. I know of many cases of men who are disabled as a result of an accident and if they are regarded as disabled the rate of assessment is a very low one.
There are not only the osteo-arthritis cases, but heart cases and other cases. In this respect at least I say that under the Workmen's Compensation Act the county courts and Court of Appeal in many cases dealt more generously with men than have the medical appeals tribunals. I have had experience of dealing with cases of this kind. There was a well-known case which went to the House of Lords. It was the case of a man suffering from heart trouble of whom it was said that he could have died walking upstairs, such was the nature of his heart condition. Nevertheless, he died while filling a tram with coal.
It was held that in such circumstances there was aggravation, whatever the condition of his heart may have been, and death was brought about by the conditions of employment. The medical appeals tribunal and the commissioner, in some cases, do not take the same view, and time after time men suffering from aggravation of their original injury or heart trouble are declared to have been no longer suffering as the result of an accident.
Apart from that, there is the question of the amount of the assessment. It will be known that where assessments are less than 20 per cent.—except in pneumoconiosis cases—the persons concerned are paid a gratuity. That is a relic of the old Workmen's Compensation Act. They are given a lump sum in final discharge. I should not say "final discharge", because the workman can obtain a review in certain circumstances. It is not final, I admit; but it is still very difficult to get a case of this kind reopened.
The man is paid off with a gratuity estimated at 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. He receives £100 or £120 and that is the end of it. Later, he may be able to prove aggravation or change of circumstances but it is not easy to do that. It requires a great deal of medical evidence to have the case reopened. I admit that it can be done, but, as I have said, in

most cases there is a gratuity and a final lump sum settlement. This is a point which the Minister might well consider.
Where men are given an assessment of under 20 per cent. it is far better that they should be paid a weekly rate of benefit. It can be said that a man can obtain a hardship allowance in certain circumstances, but when he receives an assessment first and there is delay in proving entitlement he may not receive a hardship allowance. The man is given £90, or £100, or £120 possibly, to cover the rest of his life and the money is whittled away. This method of payment is a relic of the old Workmen's Compensation Act which I hope will pass away.
The Ministry from time to time issues circulars giving guidance to its officers and officials. It is all to the good if, by this means, it is possible to bring about a measure of uniformity. I do not know whether that circular has now been changed, but the Ministry issued one which stated that if a man who suffered from hernia wore a truss, or if a man who suffered from an eye defect wore glasses, that should be taken into account in making an assessment. In other words, the assessment would be reduced in such cases. This is quite indefensible. It does not apply to artificial limbs, but I assume that it applies to hearing aids. I do not think that it was ever intended to operate the provision in that way under the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
The rates of assessment awarded to men suffering from dermatitis are shocking, at 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. If a man leaves the pits or some other industrial occupation he thinks he is cured and is given an assessment of 10 per cent., which means that he is paid off with a gratuity. Later, when he returns to work, the dermatitis flares up again and the end result is that the man cannot resume his occupation. He receives £80 or £100. I ask the Minister to look closely at this problem. Dermatitis is a disabling disease and often prevents men from returning to their employment. I hope that this will be borne in mind when the question of assessment is dealt with in the Government's reply to the debate.
The hardship allowance is possibly the most troublesome feature in the administration of the Act. The House will be aware that provision was made for these


allowances to ensure some limited compensation where, as a result of an accident, a person is unable to resume his occupation and he suffers loss of wages. This, again, is a survival from the Workmen's Compensation Act. In dealing with compensation the Act dealing with industrial injuries combines two factors—the man's loss of faculty and, secondly, his loss of earnings. In certain circumstances, he can be paid a hardship allowance which, under the war compensation scheme, is called a "loss of occupation allowance." My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) caused this Section to be inserted in the Act. If it had not been for the hardship allowance I am sure that the operation of the Act would have broken down.
We all know about the old cases which concerned a man who lost an eye and who, when it was thought that the other eye was quite normal, had light work and was given low assessment. But men of that kind who were engine drivers or skilled engineers lost their job as a result of loss of sight in one eye and it was felt that there should be some payment for loss of wages and earning capacity. We took the same view about the payment of compensation for partial incapacity under the old Workmen's Compensation Act and, therefore, this provision was inserted in the Industrial Injuries Scheme, but with certain limitations.
The scheme requires that the claimant must prove—and I ask the House to note its restrictive nature—that at all times since the end of the injury benefit period he has been incapable of following his regular occupation or employment of an equivalent standard or he is likely to remain permanently incapable.
There are many men who cannot be regarded as permanently incapacitated. The doctors may hold the view that a man may be partially incapacitated for months or even years. In some cases the man eventually returns to his regular occupation. His condition is not regarded as permanent and the Act, of course, requires that he must prove that "at all times" he has been unable to follow his regular employment. The fact that he goes back to work, even though he may subsequently fail to con-

tinue in that employment, deprives him of the hardship allowance.
I know that this requirement has been relaxed and that it was provided in 1952–53 that where a man goes back to his employment for rehabilitation purposes or ion medical advice to try out his old job a hardship allowance can be paid, but in many cases men go back to their previous occupation, try the job and fail, and they cannot receive a hardship allowance.
There are many such hard cases. A skilled miner, for instance, may have earned from £15 to £20 a week and after being incapacitated he thinks that he has recovered and goes back to try his old job for a time. He fails and then does not receive a hardship allowance. There was a recent case in Blaenavon, or Abertillery, of a man who was injured and who later returned to his employment. He was told that his condition was not permanent. The medical board said, "We do not think that he will be fit again for twelve months or two years." He ultimately failed in his old job, but since the board would not regard his condition as permanent he failed to receive a hardship allowance.
There are other features about these hardship allowances. There is the question of promotion. There are many cases where young men are given certain jobs underground in the mines, with the prospect of "going on the coal", as it is said, that is, of becoming colliers. They meet with an accident and application is made for a hardship allowance. In many of these cases loss of promotion is not taken into consideration. These young men hoped to be skilled workers. Because of accidents they are unable to do so, and they suffer as a consequence in the hardship allowance paid to them.
There is also the case of the piece worker who, on return to work, cannot keep pace with able-bodied men and cannot earn as much as he earned previously. These are problems which should be considered with a view to remedying decisions which are causing a great deal of dissatisfaction with this method of assessing hardship allowance.
The maximum payment is 39s. I remind hon. Members that these are skilled men, such as engineers and miners, earning £15 or £20 a week. They have probably been apprenticed to their


jobs. If they have an accident and are disabled they apply for hardship allowance. Their wages fall to £10 a week, whereas previously they were getting £20. The hardship allowance is 39s. They sink back into what may well be termed the light labouring class. All their prospects for the future disappear, and all they can get is 39s. a week plus a few shillings a week disablement pension. Does that meet the serious handicap which many of these men suffer?
I have mentioned only a few of what I regard as serious anomalies and injustices. There are a number of others. This is a short debate, otherwise I could refer to many other anomalies under the Act. I hope that as a result of the debate the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will give an assurance that he will look at the whole question of the hardship allowance and the methods of assessment in respect of pneumoconiosis. Will he also consider such cases as osteoarthritis, which are causing a great deal of discontent in the operation of the industrial injuries benefits?

Mr. Harold Davies: I hope that my hon. Friend will mention cases, now growing rarer, of miners who, before 4th July, 1948, worked in prescribed occupations and years later contracted pneumoconiosis. They can do nothing about it except by taking common law action, because they do not come under the Industrial Injuries Scheme.

Mr. Finch: Those who were certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis before 1948 and were working in industry can receive benefit under the pneumonconiosis benefits scheme. The benefits are low, and the T.U.C. has asked the right hon. Gentleman to increase them, as we hope for increases under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Perhaps we may have some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that something will be done for these men.
In any event, I have covered sufficient ground to warrant the Minister giving a definite reply on some of the points which I have raised. It is a long time since we reviewed the operation of the Act, and we do not intend to be as long in future, because many issues arise. The whole Act needs reconsideration and many of its sections need remodelling. The framework of the Act is very sound—far better than the old Workmen's

Compensation Act—but there are anomalies. If the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can get together with this side of the House to remodel some aspects of the Industrial Injuries Scheme, it would make it worth while and give some assurance and confidence to many of the men who are not in a position to help themselves.

4.34 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Sharples): As I am speaking from this Box for the first time, I hope that the House will excuse any shortcomings which there may be in my speech purely from lack of practice. My right hon. Friend asks me to say that he will be here throughout the debate and, at the end, will deal with any points which I do not cover and any which may be raised after my speech.
As always, the House has listened with the greatest attention to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), who speaks from such a long association with the coal mining industry and with such great authority on this subject. There can be no doubt at all about the importance of the Industrial Injuries Scheme to the coal mining industry.
The hon. Member gave some figures and I should like to give some more. In 1959, 44 per cent. of those who drew injury benefit and 43 per cent. of those who drew disablement benefit were classified as miners. Looking at a much more tragic feature of our industrial life today, during the same period about 30 per cent. of those drawing death benefits were the widows of miners. Looking at the figures for pneumoconiosis, of the 4,000 new cases diagnosed in 1960 by the pneumoconiosis panel boards, about 80 per cent. came from the coal mining industry.
Many of these cases may have been the result of conditions which obtained in the past. One of the characteristics of the disease is that it often takes many years for the consequences of inhaling dust to show in the form of a disability. Since 1943, when the form of pneumoconiosis due to coal dust was recognised as a distinct industrial disease, there has been a concerted attack on it at three points.
First, and here I stray slightly outside my field, there is the supression of the dust, which is the responsibility of the technicians and engineers of the National Coal Board and the Ministry of Power. A few days ago I went to a pit in the Durham area and saw something of what is being done by means of spraying water upon coal and injecting water into coal before it is cut. An enormous amount of work has been done, none the less, I know from my own experience of looking at a 2 ft. 3 in. seam that there is a lot of dust and dirt about. Anyone who has seen miners working in a 2 ft. 3 in. seam knows that it is a tough and dirty occupation.
Secondly, there is the medical research which is being carried out under the auspices of the Medical Research Council and the Ministry of Health. With my right hon. Friend a week or two ago, I was able to visit the pneumoconiosis research unit at Llandough to see at first hand same of the work which is being carried out by Dr. Gilson and his team of doctors and scientists. I was tremendously impressed by the keenness and spirit of those who are carrying out these researches.
The third relief for this disease is provided through the industry's own scheme and also through this Department, which has the responsibility of alleviating the consequences of the disease through the administration of the Industrial Injuries Act. Looking at those three together—and there is a close link between them—what has struck me particularly since I have been in the Department is the close association which exists between those who are concerned with each of the three elements of which I have spoken. The result, I think, is the development of an overall medical organisation comprised of doctors with special knowledge and experience of the disease.
There is no need for me to tell the House that the incidence of pneumoconiosis is by no means confined to those in the coal mining industry. Since 1954, workers in all dusty occupations have been brought under the benefit provisions for the disease, which means, in effect, that the benefit is available wherever the disease is discovered.
I would like now to turn to points raised by the hon. Member and, first,

I shall deal with the definition of the disease itself, because that is relevant to what one includes in it. The definition, as the House will know, is contained in Section 57 (3) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. It is, of course, the only industrial disease which is actually defined in the Statute. The definition is:
… fibrosis of the lungs due to silica dust, asbestos dust or other dust, and includes the condition of the lungs known as dust reticulation.
As the hon. Gentleman said, this definition originated under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts, and following its introduction in the 1946 Act by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) it has been fully reconsidered by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. To change the definition an amending Act would be necessary. When the Advisory Council considered the matter, it found in favour of retaining the statutory definition and said, in its 1953 Report:
In a field where there is scope for wide differences of opinion, we think that there are substantial advantages in having some statutory indication of the interpretation to be adopted.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Is not it fair to say, however, that when the hon. Member discusses reticulation as a feature of pneumoconiosis, he is speaking of pneumoconiosis in coal mining and not necessarily among potters, or flint workers, or other industrial workers? Is not this definition concerned with coal mining?

Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman has much more medical knowledge than I have, but, as I understand it, the definition applies to pneumoconiosis as a whole. If I am wrong, however, I certainly stand to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman, who has far greater medical knowledge than I have on these subjects.

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that considerable research has been done since 1953 on pneumoconiosis, not only by the bodies and organisations which he has referred to but also by private and semiprivate researchers? Previous Ministers have been fully informed—I had the pleasure of trying to contribute to that—about the opinions expressed by very competent physicians, who have done a


great deal of research into what pneumoconiosis means and, in particular, into the probable causes of it in addition to coal dust.

Mr. Sharples: At the moment, I am talking of the definition which is contained the Act. I will come a little later, perhaps, to what has been done since and what opinions have been expressed about making changes in the definition. Expressing an opinion is, of course, a different matter from producing concrete medical facts which may lead to an alteration.
In arriving at its conclusion, the Advisory Council gave full consideration to whether the definition should be widened to bring under the heading of pneumoconiosis other respiratory conditions, such as bronchitis and emphysema which may be due to, or aggravated by, dust, but which also commonly occur through various other causes. But the Council said firmly in its Retort that it would be wrong to cover such conditions under the industrial injuries provisions unless they were shown individually—and this is the point—to satisfy the fundamental test in Section 55 (2) of the Act, which is very specific and is the operative provision under which industrial diseases can be prescribed.
It says:
A disease or injury may be prescribed for the purposes of this Part of the Act in relation to any insured persons, if the Minister is satisfied that—

(a) it ought to be treated, having regard to its causes and incidence and any other relevant considerations, as a risk of their occupations and not as a risk common to all persons; and
(b) it is such that, in the absence of special circumstances, the attribution of particular cases to the nature of the employment can be established or presumed with reasonable certainty."

The Advisory Council, referring to these points, said in its Report that
… it would be contrary to the spirit and intention of the Act if these other conditions were brought under its cover by being admitted, as it were, through a back door under the guide of pneumoconiosis.
Since then, although I agree that a great deal of medical work has been done, and that a number of medical opinions have been expressed, it is fair to say that nothing concrete has emerged which would lead one to alter one's

views upon the definition of pneumoconiosis as contained in the Act.
A point which is sometimes misunderstood is that when a claimant is found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis, and is also suffering from some other respiratory condition, such as bronchitis or emphysema, medical boards increase the assessment of disablement from pneumoconiosis if other conditions make the effects of the disease more disabling than it might otherwise be.

Mr. S. O. Davies: In the case of death?

Mr. Sharples: Can I leave death for a moment, for it to be referred to later?
It has been suggested that bronchitis and emphysema, two diseases commonly associated with pneumoconiosis, could be defined as industrial diseases in themselves. The difficulty here is that both are common amongst the population as a whole. On the Continent of Europe, bronchitis is known as the "English disease." Bearing in mind the limitations imposed in Section 55 (2) of the Act, it is very difficult to define either of those diseases as an industrial disease, in the light of present medical knowledge.

Mr. Finch: When a man suffers from bronchitis and emphysema as well as pneumoconiosis, how can the medical board, from an X-ray examination, properly assess the degree of disability due to pneumoconiosis? Is it not true that a great deal of guesswork is done when the condition is due to one of those three disabilities?

Mr. Sharples: I know that it is always difficult to say where any science leaves off and guesswork begins. The hon. Member has mentioned a real difficulty, but what happens in practice is that where there is a serious case of pneumoconiosis the man suffering from the disability is given the benefit of any doubt. The difficulty arises when bronchitis is the main disability, but when there may be an element of pneumoconiosis. There is no difficulty, in practice, in the more serious cases of pneumoconiosis.
The hon. Member asked why we could not do what was done in Australia and he might have used the same argument about South Africa. In South Africa and Australia circumstances are different, in that bronchitis is not a


common disease among the population as a whole. Perhaps because of our climate, bronchitis is one of the most common diseases in this country and is probably put as the cause of death in more cases than any other single disease, both inside and outside industry.

Mr. Finch: Statistics show that it is more prevalent in the mines.

Mr. Sharples: Statistics are always dangerous. I admit that recent statistics show that it is more common in mining areas. I should not like to go any further than that at this stage. It is more common in industrial areas, particularly mining areas, but we do not have any figures to prove that it is necessarily more common among the miners themselves.

Dr. Stross: The Parliamentary Secretary is very kind about giving way, especially as he has not been accustomed to speaking at the Box, as he has said. We very much congratulate him on the way he is doing it.
Has he come across the fact that for a whole generation in mining areas, without statistics because we did not have them, we have spoken of what we have called "miners' emphysema ", differentiating it both in type and form from emphysema of the surrounding population?

Mr. Sharples: I am interested to hear that. Frankly, I have not heard it before and I did not know that it was medically possible to differentiate between the form of emphysema which the miner gets and that which the population as a whole gets. That is the sort of thing upon which this matter depends.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty also asked me how it was possible to differentiate between the tuberculosis among the population at large and the industrial disease of tuberculosis. Tuberculosis as an industrial disease has been limited to a small number of people who are liable to get it from their employment. That is to say, it has been limited to those who work in close contact with tuberculous infection, such as those who work in T.B. hospitals.

Mr. Finch: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for allowing me to interrupt again. Under the pneumoconiosis

scheme, when a man has tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis he is given a certificate to say that the disablement is due to pneumoconiosis accompanied by tuberculosis. If that can be done with T.B., which can be contracted in other industries and among nurses and doctors, and if the public is liable to get it, as the public is liable to get bronchitis, why cannot the same sort of thing be done for men suffering from bronchitis and emphysema?

Mr. Sharples: In that type of case the tuberculosis is associated with the pneumoconiosis, which is the industrial disease.
The hon. Member asked me to refer to the death benefits and to the differences of opinion which there are from time to time between the pathologists and the Pneumoconiosis Panel itself. A scrutiny was carried out fairly recently of the death benefit claims far the three years ended 31st December, 1960, in which there was an appeal to the Commissioner on this issue. There were 143 such cases. In 17 of the 75 cases in England and Wales there was no medical evidence suggesting that the pneumoconiosis could have played any part in causing death. In 51 of the cases the pathologist considered that the pneumoconiosis played some part in the cause of death and gave an opinion contrary to that of the Panel.
In nearly all of those cases, however, the primary cause of death was some serious "killing" condition such as carcinoma or coronary or cerebral thrombosis, and the opinion of the pathologist on the effects of pneumoconiosis in such conditions was at variance with the general consensus of informed medical opinion.
As my right hon. Friend announced a short time ago, we have instigated inquiries on the wider front of general health in industry to show the extent and causes of the incapacity for work recorded in sickness benefit claims in different occupations and in different areas. We are very grateful to the employers far the way in which they have co-operated with us in filling in the inquiry forms in which we have asked them for information about the occupations of a sample of their employees. We wanted details of about 700,000 employees and the figure this


morning was that we had received back 87 per cent. of the forms. We hope that in the weeks ahead that proportion will rise to the 100 per cent. which we want. It is terribly important that we should get all this information and get it early if the inquiry which we are making is to be a success.
As the House knows, this is only the first stage in a study of a very complex subject, and it will be some time before the results are available. The study was started in June. The information will be collected over the next year, and it will take some time after that to analyse the results.
I turn now to deal with some more of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and in passing, I would say that he was good enough to warn me of some of the points he proposed to raise about assessments under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. One of the points he made was about offsets, that is, where an assessment is reduced because the part of the body injured was not normal before the accident. The hon. Gentleman quoted the example of a person suffering from arthritis. One of the difficulties in this kind of case is that the man may often not know that he is suffering from that disease before the accident.
I do not think that there is general disagreement that conditions existing before an accident should be excluded from the assessment. The difficulty arises when an accident adds to the disablement of a man who is suffering from a condition which does not affect his capacity to work. These cases are most difficult, and sometimes lead to a difference of medical opinion.
The position is that, although the actual disablement resulting from conditions which existed beforehand has to be excluded from the assessment, the extra disablement caused by the interaction between the industrial injury and the earlier condition is included in the assessment. It is very difficult to generalise about these cases where each one has to be considered on its merits by the medical board, and it is for the board to arrive at a conclusion in each case.
Very much the same considerations apply to dermatitis. A person may be suffering from a constitutional form of dermatitis which is aggravated by contact

at work with dust, liquid or vapour, and it is only the aggravation which can be accepted as the prescribed disease. Misunderstanding often arises when the effect of the aggravation wears off and the person is left only with the constitutional condition which he suffered from originally.
I want to refer now to special hardship allowance, and put one or two considerations before the House. Since I have been in the Department, I have visited National Insurance offices and talked to the people who work in them. I confirm what the hon. Gentleman said, that special hardship allowance is probably the most difficult of all the allowances to administer. It depends on so many different factors. It depends on the earnings which a man is getting. It also depends on the level of earnings in the industry he was in before he had the accident. I know that one sometimes gets letters about cases of this kind where, for instance, there has been short time working in the industry with which the man was formerly associated and the insurance officer is forced to reduce the special hardship allowance which is being paid to him. That is the extreme case which arises and leads to a certain amount of difficulty.
I am slightly at issue with the hon. Gentleman on the next point. To my mind, the whole concept of the Industrial Injuries Scheme is based on loss of faculty. Almost any extension of special hardship allowance gets us further away from this principle, which was the whole concept of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, and back in the direction of a loss of earnings. I do not believe that there is any general desire on the part of anyone concerned with these cases to revert to the principle of loss of earnings, which was the fundamental concept of the old Workmen's Compensation Acts.
The third consideration is that the Industrial Injuries Scheme is based on flat-rate contributions from employer and employee. Special hardship allowance introduces to a limited extent—and I agree that it is only to a limited extent—an element of graduated benefit related to loss of earnings.
When the Scheme was introduced, the idea was that the benefit would go only


to those who suffered special hardship, in that a small injury gave rise to excessive loss of earnings. Since the introduction of the Salome, special hardship allowance has played a much bigger part than was envisaged by those who introduced the scheme. I would like to quote some figures that I think the House ought to note. About one-third of the whole cost of the disablement benefits is accounted for by special hardship allowance. In 1959–60 it is estimated that out of a total of £24,600,000 paid in disablement benefits, £8,800,000 was paid in the form of special hardship allowance.
I realise that there is always the case which falls just outside the scope of this rather complicated allowance, and that there is always pressure, as the hon. Gentleman said, to extend the allowance to bring in the category of persons who are just outside it. But we ought to think carefully about where we are going, because we are near the point where any considerable extension of the allowance would undermine the whole principle of the scheme, which, as I have said, depends on loss of faculty and on fixed rate contributions.
The Industrial Injuries Scheme launched in 1948 by the right hon. Member for Llanelly was a complete break with everything that had gone before. At the time there was general agreement that a system of insurance should replace the system under which compensation was so frequently a matter of dispute between the injured man and his employer.
It was also generally agreed that the central feature of such a scheme should be a pension based on loss of faculty—that is to say, on loss of health, strength and the power to enjoy life—rather than on compensation related solely to loss of earnings, which was the feature of the earlier scheme. I think that it is fair to say that the groundwork of that scheme was done by Lord Ingleby when he was Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, but it was made a reality by the right hon. Member for Llanelly.
Although the scheme has now been in operation for some thirteen years, I believe that this is the first general debate we have had on it. It is quite clear that it has stood the test of time pretty well.
Apart from increases in rates, there have been amending Acts in 1948, 1953 and 1959. The present rates of benefit are higher, in real terms, than they have ever been. Considering the wide scope of the scheme and its complete break with the past, the amendments to it have been very few.
I am sure that the House would wish me to pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for Bedwellty, to those who administer the scheme—the officials in the National Insurance offices, to those who have the great responsibility of assessing the claims submitted, and to those who adjudicate upon the claims. The House would wish me, too, to pay tribute to the work of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which has given very good advice to the successive Ministers who have borne responsibility for administering the scheme.
I do not say that some further modification may not be necessary in the course of time, and in the light of increasing knowledge. That has been done before, and may again be necessary. What I do say is that the common objective of all of us who are concerned with these matters, on both sides of the House, must be the fairest treatment of the casualties of industry, and the efficient working of a scheme that is financed by every employed person and by every employer.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: First, it is my very pleasant task, and I am sure that the whole House will be with me, to congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. Both his presentation and the way in which he has endeavoured to help hon. Members who have desired clarification and elucidation have been excellent. It struck me as the hon. Gentleman spoke that in this debate we are on a journey of discovery. We are all anxious to get the best out of this piece of legislation because it concerns the men and women who are injured in industry.
I represent a very important mining constituency in Nottinghamshire, but I had not realised that the injury incidence was so high among miners. From the statistics quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary, it would appear that of those involved in 1959 in reportable accidents,


and receiving benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act, 44 per cent. were miners receiving industrial injury benefit, and that 43 per cent. of the total number receiving disablement benefit were also miners.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, although thirteen years have elapsed since the inception of this very important scheme which has replaced the old Workmen's Compensation Acts and is based on entirely new principles, this is the first time we have had a debate devoted directly and solely to it. It is a pity that we were not able to have a full day's debate, because I know that many hon. Members want to speak and there are very many important points to be raised. All our previous discussions have been wrapped up with the contributions and benefits implicit in the National Insurance Acts that the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have introduced. Today, however, for the first time, we can directly ventilate matters concerned with the operation of the Industrial Injuries Act.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) in drawing attention to the fact that since 1948—this may sound fantastic, but it is true—millions of people have been affected by, and many more millions of days of incapacity have resulted from, accidents and from prescribed diseases. Many of these accidents and diseases have proved fatal and many more have been of a serious nature, involving permanent disability, but we rejoice in knowing that a great number have been less serious and have not involved any prolonged disability at all.
I was interested to note in the Ministry's latest Report that for the year ending May, 1958, there were no fewer than 718,000 reportable accidents. If we take that as an average year, and if we allow for the fact that some of the men and women concerned were involved in more than one accident in the period, a very conservative estimate shows that since the inception of the Act about 7 million or 8 million people in industry have been affected, involving many more millions of days of incapacity.
These are astronomical figures, and they are significant both in terms of human suffering and—very important in

these days—in terms of loss of production. With those two factors in mind, it will surely be agreed that no effort should be spared by managements and workers and everyone in industry to reduce to the lowest possible minimum the number of accidents—indeed, entirely to wipe out avoidable accidents—and the incidence of industrial disease.
Having said that, I wish to raise a minor point with the Minister. It is an administrative point. The criticism which I make is not a severe one, but I make it in the hope of being helpful and useful to the people who receive these documents. The right hon. Gentleman will know the document which is sent to a person who has decided to appeal to the Medical Appeal Tribunal against the decision of the medical board. The Minister himself may decide to refer such a decision to the Medical Appeal Tribunal. The legibility of what is written on Form B.1/91 really beggars description.
I am sure that the Department could devise something better than these photo-stat copies. I have seen many of them, and I must confess that, when people have spoken to me about the forms, I have had the utmost difficulty to give a reasonable explanation of what is written on them. This may appear to be of minor significance, but it is very important to those people concerned when so much is at stake. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to look at the matter.
I wish now to make a few observations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty has done, about the special hardship allowance. I am not unmindful of the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary. Those of us who come from mining areas know that this benefit affects, numerically, miners more than any other section of industrial workers. Therefore, I make no apologies for reiterating and, I hope, reinforcing some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty.
This benefit is a very old friend of ours indeed. Its purpose has been outlined to us and I want to say without any equivocation at all that in the set-up of the Industrial Injuries Scheme the benefit has played a very important part. Let us take the man with a small assessment. Because of the nature of his pre-accident employment he is unable to return to


work, though his loss of faculty may be only very slight. As a result of the peculiarities surrounding his pre-accident work he is unable to go back. As my hon. Friend said, in many cases that pre-accident work was highly remunerative compared with his post-accident earnings.
Let us put ourselves in the position of that individual. When the Parliamentary Secretary talks about this benefit getting out of proportion and possibly undermining the principles of the scheme, I hope that he will have another look at the matter and think again. I wish to put it on record that, in my view, this benefit has saved the Industrial Injuries Scheme. That is how I feel about it. However, in spite of proclaiming its virtues, I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the debate he will not place too great an emphasis upon trying to marry these two opposites. We have had that before. Here it is, and we have to make it as good as we can in the interests of the people to whom I have just referred.
As my hon. Friend said, there are certain aspects of this benefit where changes are most desirable. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not say, "Well, your Government were responsible for introducing it." It was a good thing. The scheme itself was a good scheme but it was not absolute. It was only the beginning, and if experience teaches us that there is need for change and modification, why should we be like the ostrich and bury our heads in the sand? Let us admit it and face the situation.
In my view, the Minister should consider improving the conditions which are necessary for the qualification of this benefit. I think that 39s., the present level of the benefit, is too low. To be prevented by disablement from maintaining one's pre-accident standards—and in some cases the difference amounts to pounds a week—is very frustrating and certainly very disappointing. In my view the gap should be narrowed.
I now wish to turn the attention of the House for a short while to what I regard as some of the anomalies of this benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty quoted the Act, which states:
In order to claim the claimant must prove at all times since the end of injury benefit he

has been incapable of following his regular occupation, or is likely to remain incapable.
I believe that in recent times—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will tell us—the Trades Union Congress has made representations on this point. Coming as I do from a mining area, I know that the unions representing the miners are frequently—indeed, it is almost an every day occurrence—coming up against cases of difficulty and hardship because of the operation of the words which I have just quoted.
I am not unmindful of the trial period which, I believe, was extended in 1952 and which was very welcome, but I have come to the conclusion that it does not give to these men the desired protection. It would be much simpler if this condition were modified. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to do that. More important still, it would remove a lot of the discontent which exists as far as the operation of the special hardship allowance is concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the cost of the disablement benefit as being one-third. Do not let us forget the people with whom we are dealing, from what they are suffering and how frustrated and disappointed they are. Even if it is a question of cost—that point was raised and was implicit in the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks—I should not think that the cost would be very large. The fund is in a very healthy condition and could easily stand the cost, and then a sense of injustice and discontent would certainly Abe removed.
I should like to have said a word or two about promotion prospects. I think that this matter has to be looked at too. It is very hard on a boy who at the very commencement of his industrial life becomes disabled and who sees his chances of promotion completely removed. It is not uncommon in mining areas for a boy, having just started in the pits, to lose an arm or a leg. His prospects of becoming a piece worker or a ripper on piece rate work are accordingly shattered. After all, that would be his ambition, as otherwise he would not have entered the industry at all. It is important that we should have the maximum recruitment because employment in the pits is becoming a problem. I hope that the Minister will look at the question of promotion prospects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bed-wellty talked about offsets and I wish to reinforce what he said. I am sure that this is a matter which merits consideration. It is true that Section 12 (2, b) of the Act makes provision for medical boards to make offsets. We know that there are cases where prior to sustaining an accident a person may have a disease but show no sign that he has it. Osteo-arthritis is often triggered off by an accident. There is dissatisfaction in union circles at what is considered the unreasonable interpretation of the rules of the scheme in this connection by medical boards.
The last point I wish to raise has not yet been mentioned in this debate. Some time ago I put down a Question on the matter because it is exercising the minds of many people. I refer to industrial diseases and to the problem created by Dupuytren's contracture. My information is, despite the truthful answer which the Minister gave to my Question relating to applications, that this condition is becoming more prevalent among workers in industry. Within recent weeks I have had information provided by the area branch of the National Union of Mineworkers giving details of at least twenty eases which have occurred during the past few years. If a person is medically certified as suffering from Dupuytren's contracture he has a sickness benefit only if he is totally incapacitated. Many men are unable to return to their pre-condition work, because of the deformity which is set up. I am not sure, but I think that this condition has a more lasting effect than beat end. If a man can return to his pre-condition employment he has no disablement benefit and no hardship allowance either.

Dr. Stross: Dupuytren's contracture is much more lasting than beat end. It is permanent, and the condition gets worse from time to time even though no more work is being done and there is, therefore, no further aggravation. Unless operative treatment is made available there can be no alleviation.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) knows much more about diagnosis and prognosis in these matters than I do.
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, beat end is in the schedule of prescribed

diseases. We call it "beat end" but it has another fancy name in the schedule. There is a distinction between this condition and Dupuytren's contracture. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central says that the disabling effect is, to put it at its lowest, certainly no less than in the case of beat end.
I hope that the Minister will not argue that already this schedule is long enough. We should remember that in 1897 there were only six prescribed diseases in the schedule and that there have been so many additions since that now the number is thirty-nine. I wish to bring the question of Dupuytren's contracture to the notice of the Minister in the hope that he will submit the matter to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. I join with the Parliamentary Secretary in paying tribute to the work done by that body over the years. It is my hope that before very long Dupuytren's contracture will be added to the list of diseases.
I am open to correction, but, so far as I know, the question of prescribed diseases has not been dealt with in a substantial fashion since the setting up of the Beney Committee in 1953, and that Committee reported as long ago as 1955. It may be that the Minister will have something to say about this matter, but, if not, I hope that he will give his undivided attention and full consideration to the question of Dupuytren's contracture, which is growing more common.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: I am very glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). I shall not be able to follow him in his discussion of the last disease which he mentioned, because I can neither pronounce it nor can I spell it. But tomorrow I will look at the hon. Member's speech as reported in HANSARD and get to know more about it. I am also glad to follow the hon. Member because I have known him for a good many years before becoming a Member of the House. I am aware that he has always cared for his fellow men—I am glad to say that of him—and I wish to pay tribute to the work that he has done in this matter.
I join with the hon. Member for Mansfield in congratulating my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on his speech. It is strange that we can


have an interesting debate on such a technical subject. On Wednesday and Thursday of last week I sat in the Chamber hoping for the opportunity to make a speech on economic affairs. I am wondering whether I should make it this afternoon—it is a very good speech. Looking round the Chamber today I feel like a tadpole in a very large pond. All the "giants" have departed and we happy few remain to deal with the problems which have been referred to, and to endeavour to bring happiness to so many of those people who are affected by them.
I do not wish to make a long speech, because I know that hon. Members opposite have so much to contribute to the debate, but there are one or two points which I wish to mention. I was shocked at the figures given by the hon. Member for Mansfield of the increasing number of accidents, and also by the references by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), and the information given about the cost to production in this country, which is almost beyond calculation. One should bear that in mind as well as the amount of suffering which is involved.
I am glad that the hon. Members who have spoken about this matter fairly laid the blame on both management and men. There is so much more which needs to be done to eliminate thousands of accidents which are caused by carelessness. I wonder how many accidents in our factories are caused by the increasing use being made of slippery floor materials. Why is it that the very thing which is abolished in hospitals—where the hazards which may result from polished floors are appreciated—is allowed in factories, offices and shops to an increasing extent? Accident figures are available for study, and if they were studied I am sure that we should be able to find means to reduce the number of accidents.
So many accidents are due to absolute carelessness. As the House knows, I am engaged in the business of insurance and recently I came across a terrible accident which occurred simply because one rung of a ladder was broken. As a result a man fell only a few feet, but his skull was fractured and now that man and his family will suffer as a result. It was not the man's fault and it was not the fault

of the management. Other ladders were available.
There must be much more education. I wish that the trade unions and managements, would do more. I think that the Minister could gain a good deal of information from the centre of our commercial life, where the facts of almost every single accident that happened are known—that is, from the world of insurance. Why is there not closer liaison with the Accident Offices Association, where since 1946, when the Fatal Accidents Act was passed, nearly every accident, and the cause and details of it, is recorded. If there could be closer liaison between the Ministry and the people who know the facts, surely we should be able to sift out the causes of the most prevalent accidents and, through the unions, and management educate people by means of lectures, and so on.
There are one or two questions which I should like to ask. I believe that I am right in saying that a totally disabled war pensioner can receive a car under the disablement scheme. I believe that I am also right in saying that a person totally disabled in industry can have a tricycle provided for his use through the Ministry. I wonder whether we can extend the scheme a little further. Where a man is entitled to a tricycle, could not he be helped financially to obtain a car if he can find the balance of the money required himself or through his family?
It is a very great hardship to a man of 30—the miner, for instance, to whom the hon. Member for Mansfield referred—who loses a leg, or perhaps both legs. He is unable to enjoy the fuller life which we are trying to provide for all our people. If we admit the responsibility, as we do, to provide a tricycle in certain cases, surely we could go a step further. If a man has friends, or a club, or a union, by means of which a sum of money is provided towards the cost of acquiring a car, why cannot we contribute the cost of the tricycle towards that cost and so give the man a fuller life? Then he can take his family out with him at weekends.
On the subject of pneumoconiosis, I well remember reading, some years ago, the evidence given by Sir Bernard Spilsbury in a murder trial. When discussing the examination he had made of the victim, he said, "The victim had the


lungs of a town dweller." I have never felt as well since then, because I live in a town. We have had discussions about pneumoconiosis, and tuberculosis, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that there are not so many people suffering from bronchitis who live in the vicinity of the Sussex Downs as there are in the mining and industrial districts.
I want to see in the administration of this Act a wider benefit of doubt given to the people who are suffering. I hope that hon. Members opposite will realise that there are occasional disadvantages in moving away from the older Workmen's Compensation Acts. It is a mistaken impression to think that because insurance stamps are paid for by both sides in industry the employer has been released from all the employers' liability premiums which he used to pay before 1948. I can assure the House that in industry the employer is paying a good deal more now in premiums than he ever paid under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts.
The reason for that is not far to seek. We altered the law and the net result is that with the advantage of common law claims and greater damages the cost to industry is just as heavy as it was under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. The benefit of those Acts was that there were often ex gratia payments. It is very difficult to deal with Government pensions on an ex gratia basis.
One thing which always infuriates me is the refusal to accept that the loss of a limb or two limbs materially affects a man's general health. I give one example. It is that of a man who, at Mons—donkeys' years ago now—lost an arm. He had 30 or 40 operations and eventually he died of heart failure. No pension was payable because he died of heart failure. It is nonsense to suggest that the man's health and physical fitness had not been affected by the loss of a limb and the fact that he had undergone all those operations.
Doctors, scientists and others are trying to examine these matters. It is difficult for us as laymen to follow the technical arguments, but it is not difficult to apply a little common sense. I am sure that we should be a great deal more broadminded in the way we deal with doubtful claims, especially with regard to pneumoconiosis and the other

cases mentioned, and when considering the effects of serious injuries, such as the loss of a limb, on a person's general health. We should try to seek a way of dealing with doubtful cases so that a greater measure of mercy is shown to those who need it most.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution to what I regard as a very important debate. Perhaps I shall be forgiven if I do not follow exactly the lines which the debate has followed so far. So far as I am able I wish to deal with the subject of industrial injuries in a more general way.
I feel that I can speak on this subject from personal experience, having been a branch secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union for fourteen years and having handled the cases of a number of injured workpeople. I have also made a close study of the excellent book "Accidents and Ill Health at Work" by John L. Williams. Those two facts combined enable me to make my contribution and to put four distinct points to the Government.
I believe the problem of industrial injuries is so serious that public opinion ought to be educated about it for, in terms of human suffering and the end cost to the nation, it is a matter of very great importance. I do not think that is being done now, but it ought to be done. Secondly, we should ask ourselves if enough is being done about methods of safeguards. Thirdly, we should ask if enough is being done about industrial diseases. That may be the most insidious part of the problem of industrial disability. Fourthly, we should ask if further research could benefit the nation, the citizen and the good employer.
On the first point, my statistics are drawn from the book to which I referred and I believe they are quite reliable. We are asked to believe that every year more than 800,000 people suffer industrial injury and 2,370 of those cases are fatal. That works out at about 37·7 per 1,000 of all employed people. Those are dry figures, but I can add my personal experiences to them.
My father died before I knew him and my mother married again. Before I was 8 years of age my stepfather was carried


home from the mines, killed. Those memories will last with me so long as I am privileged to walk this earth. The impact of those experiences on one so young are with me now. Fortunately, we were not a large family. Unless we see this problem in this way we shall fail in our duty. One is entitled to ask forthrightly, if the accident ratio in this House of Commons affecting hon. Members were similar should we be quite so detached in the way we view the problem? We cannot consider the problem properly unless we see it in those terms.
For those who are not prepared to be guided by these purely human interests, I mention the financial cost factor, which I think is outrageously high. Professor Mathew, speaking at a Ministry of Labour conference in 1951, assessed the cost to the country of injured workpeople at more than £100 million per annum. I am afraid that figure has been amended, for Mr. Tuckwell, the chief personnel officer of Dunlop's, has argued that it should be £300 million. He has worked out the figures on a comparative basis with those from the United States of America. A man in his position should be listened to with respect. Three hundred million pounds is a very big sum. Even if we said that Mr. Tuckwell had exaggerated and we took as a mean average £200 million, that is a figure which Her Majesty's Government should examine very closely to see if that high indebtedness cannot be appreciably reduced in the interests of the nation.
On the second point, the question of application of existing safeguards, I say quite bluntly that I have tried in vain to get the figures of common law accidents in this country and have failed. That is because so many cases are settled out of court. My personal experience in dealing with such people leads me to believe that all too frequently the injuries of those in industry who have their cases treated at common law, successfully or otherwise, happen as a result of neglect by the employer.
A case happened in my constituency recently of an active young man who lost his hand. As a result of assistance which I secured from London solicitors, he had a settlement of £3,700 made out of court. One could say that he was reasonably satisfied and the employers were also

satisfied, because they passed on the liability to an insurance company, but that is not the end of the problem. That man was left minus one hand and it was due to the negligence of the employer. I do not think we deal with that kind of problem in the way in which it is entitled to be dealt with, for this nation has now to accept the liability.
Much has been said about pneumoconiosis and silicosis, both of which I know very well, as I worked in the mines for twelve years. I strongly suspect that I am suffering from some form of pneumoconiosis or silicosis. It is hardly possible to work for twelve years in the pits without contracting some dust disease. However, I am more concerned about dermatitis. From my personal experiences I consider that this disease is being contracted in British industry as a direct result of neglect by some employers.
I have been into this question as a trade union official. I have seen forty young people eating sandwiches placed between pieces of newspaper. When I asked why they were eating their food in that disgusting manner, I was told that it was because there were no washing facilities of any kind. The Minister is laughing at me—

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg the pardon of the hon. Member if I gave him that impression. I am far from doing that. Although it happens that this particular part of his speech comes within the departmental responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and not mine, I assure the hon. Member that I was not showing any discourtesy to what I thought was a most interesting and effective part of his speech.

Mr. Jones: I accept that from the Minister.
These people who were eating their food in the manner I have described said they did so because there was no hot water with which to wash their hands. I inquired where the manager was and found that, apparently, he was in the nearby town having his lunch. I left a message that I would be back within a week at the same time with a factory inspector. That was a case which


I detected, but how many cases go undetected? I know from experience that a great deal of vicious disease is contracted for no other reason than neglect—because there are no washing facilities for those who are having to use dirty solubles on machines. I have frequently known of a case of a skilled man contracting this complaint. Then we lose a skilled man from industry. I should like an analysis to be made of how many workers we are losing in this way.

Mr. Raymond Gower: While not dissenting from what the hon. Member is saying, may I ask if he agrees that most of his criticisms are directed against what he considers deficiency under the Factories Acts rather than of provisions for industrial injury cases?

Mr. Jones: I made the point that existing safeguards are not being applied or are being disregarded. I have pointed out that where there are clean coolants and lubricants, hot water and facilities for washing we could reduce the incidence of disease.
One cannot speak about dermatitis merely as a skin complaint. I know for a fact that certain people who have suffered from the complaint have required psychiatric treatment after about two years of trying to grapple with the disease, for it plays havoc with people's senses and well-being. This is something that we do not face up to properly.
My fourth point is research. I have always been rather amazed at the situation which obtains in mines. I know from personal experience that where inspections are held, the inspections take place at all times with a representative of the workmen present. Why does not the same thing take place in factories? I was a works convenor and also a branch secretary, and I have known of many inspections taking place in the factory, but I was never asked to accompany those carrying out the inspection. Why? In the matter of accidents, what is the difference between factories and mines? Are we not prepared that trade union representatives should be vigilant in ensuring that all safeguards are applied If this were done, the number of accidents could be reduced appreciably.
Although more than 7 million people are employed in our factories, very little research is carried out. Indeed, of our 240,000 factories only 3,250 have voluntary safety committees. When it is realised that 90 per cent. of our factories employ fewer than 250 people, it can easily be appreciated that in the small firms all kinds of anomalies can be hidden away.
In passing, I pay tribute to the bigger companies which have very good schemes, and I wish they were imitated by the smaller firms. But it must be remembered that, in spite of all the big names in British industry, 90 per cent. of our industrial life is based on firms employing fewer than 250 people, and in consequence the vigilance there leaves very much to be desired.
Research is vitally necessary. I wish here to refer to a very pertinent Question which was asked in the House of Lords. It is a Question to which we ought to address ourselves. Lord Taylor asked
Her Majesty's Government what is the present balance of money in the Industrial Injuries Fund at the latest available date, how many grants from the fund have been made for research into industrial injuries, under Section 73 of the Industrial Injuries Act, and what is the total amount of money from the fund so far spent on research since the Act was passed in 1946.
Lord Taylor received the following reply from the Minister without Portfolio:
My Lords, the latest accounts of the Industrial Injuries Fund are those for the financial year ending March, 1960, when the balance held by the Fund was nearly £238 million. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Fund is at present being built up, on the advice of the Government Actuary, with a view to accumulating amounts sufficient to meet its ultimate liabilities. Payments have been made towards six projects under Section 73 of the Industrial Injuries Act, and the total amount of money from the Fund spent so far on research is £3,910.
I conclude with Lord Taylor's reply, with which I heartily concur:
My Lords, in view of the very large size of this Fund, and the very small amount of money which so far has been spent from it on research—£3,000 as against nearly £300 million—would the noble Lord consider, in time for the next Session—."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 26th July, 1961; Vol. 233, c. 1000–1.]

Lord Balniel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I wish


to refer to this specific matter during the course of my speech, and I should like to ask whether we can, in fact, quote textually from debates in another place. I ask this simply for my information.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is possible for hon. Members to make passing references to statements in another place, but it is not possible to quote them in toto.

Mr. Jones: I will certainly be advised, by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I sought advice before I raised this matter and was assured that as long as I did not refer to a Minister I could quote what was said.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member is referring to a Ministerial statement on policy, that is in order.

Mr. Jones: In fairness to the objection raised, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will leave the matter in that setting. I merely say that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. I feel that they are sentiments which ought to be re-echoed in the House of Commons in the interests of human happiness and the nation's well-being. This is surely a very great problem, and all too frequently we try to dispose of it merely by dispensing figures and percentages. There are very deep human issues here which I have been privileged to bring to light.

6.6 p.m.

Lord Balniel: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones), because I wish to refer very closely to the remarks that he has made. I shall be as brief as I can, because I realise that there are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak, particularly those representing coal mining constituencies which are closely concerned with the subject-matter of the debate, perhaps more closely than my constituency.
We have the unusual, if not rare, and happy experience today of discussing a fund, the Industrial Injuries Fund, which not only is solvent but, so far as I can see, does not contain in itself the seeds of future insolvency. The fund has now been built up to about £238 millon. Hon. Members opposite have said that it is

in a very sound position, but the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Burnley were, very naturally, tempted to show that we should improve the benefits being paid from it.
That is very reasonable, and I would support such a view. But we must bear in mind that a fund of this nature must be built up very rapidly to begin with, and that as a result of the passing of the National Insurance Act last year the rate of growth will be substantially reduced through our increasing the benefits and reducing the contributions. This was borne out very clearly by the report of the Government Actuary at the time of the publication of the National Insurance Bill. He pointed out that the value in perpetuity of assets exceeding the value in perpetuity of liabilities has been decreased by that Measure from £617 million to £70 million.
I do not deny that £70 million sounds a very substantial figure, but it is, in fact, only about 3 per cent. of the total value of liabilities which will fall on the fund. Nonetheless, the fund is "in the black" and there is every prospect that it will continue "in the black" and not slide into the "red". It is reasonable that in a debate such as this we should discuss the improvements that we should like to see in the payments from the fund.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) advocated that the list of prescribed industrial diseases should be widened to include new diseases not on the prescribed list at the moment. He mentioned, in particular, bronchitis. In reply, it must be pointed out that this was considered very carefully by the Beney Committee, and it was turned down emphatically by the majority of the Committee. Also, there are certain dangers, which I think we can all see, in bringing into the Industrial Injuries Fund diseases which are not specifically related to industry, but are endemic to the entire population. None the less, it was a perfectly rational means by which we can argue that improved benefits can be provided to contributors.
I question whether a widening of the prescribed list of diseases should be given the highest priority. This is where I should like to follow so closely the hon. Member for Burnley. Expenditure


out of the fund on research into the prevention of industrial illness is of the very highest priority. The hon. Member for Burnley quoted what happened in another place, when it was pointed out that the Minister has power, under Section 73 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, to finance research into industrial illness.
It was there stated that the fund now stands at about £238 million and that only £3,900 has been spent on industrial research, spread over six different projects. This is sad. This money covers research into industrial injuries and accidents which are covered by the Industrial Injuries Fund. Therefore, in so far as research of this nature is successful, it inevitably diminishes the outgoings from the fund. Expenditure in this field would bring in a rich harvest of dividends, not only in the health and happiness of workmen, but also in monetary terms. At least, some portion of the £64 million which we spend every year in compensation would be saved if we were able to accelerate work on research.
Many hon. Gentlemen who are interested in the National Health Service have been disappointed because the preventive side of the Service has not developed as many of us would have liked it to develop. There are three main facets of preventive work. There is, first, the preventive work undertaken for the elderly by local authorities. There is, secondly, particularly since the passing of the Mental Health Act, the preventive work which will be undertaken by local authorities for those who are mentally sick but not in need of hospital treatment. The third facet, which is directly relevant to the debate, is the need for an industrial health service.
The last facet is in its absolute infancy. It is no more than a pipe dream for any of us to imagine that an industrial health service will be established on the Health Service Estimates in anything like the next four or five years. We all know the immense priorities of hospital building and mental hostels and the need for higher pay for doctors and auxiliaries. All these things have a higher priority than the establishment of an industrial health service.
However, the fact that it cannot be borne on the Health Service Estimates does not in any way lessen the need or urgency for such a service. It is worth recollecting that as long ago as 1951 the Dale Committee of Inquiry on Industrial Health Services said this:
… there should eventually be some comprehensive provision for occupational health, covering not only industrial establishments of all kinds, both large and small, but also the non-industrial occupations referred to in the Report of the Gowers Committee.
The urgency has been re-emphasised in the last few months by the publication of a Report by the British Medical Association entitled, "The Future of Occupational Health Services." The Association says:
… the British Medical Association urges that an immediate beginning be made in setting up a comprehensive occupational health service.
At the moment there is a yawning gap in industrial health services. The gap is filled in small measure by the nationalised industries and by some larger private enterprise companies. The gap in research is also filled in some measure by the generous support and far-ranging vision of the Nuffield Foundation, which, this year, has devoted £250,000 to research in this sphere. That is quite a contrast from the figure being allocated under the Act. I realise that the Industrial Injuries Fund is devoted almost solely to the immensely valuable, but none the less negative work of compensating those who have suffered from industrial illness and industrial accident.
If a surplus becomes available and it is possible to improve benefits to contributors, will my right hon. Friend very seriously consider the possibility of devoting a slightly larger sum out of the immense sums which back the Industrial Injuries Fund? There is an excess of assets in perpetuity over liabilities in perpetuity of £70 million.
The hon. Member for Burnley criticised smaller companies. There is room for criticism, but what smaller companies need is the grant of fairly limited capital, combined with recurrent finance for a very limited period. It is necessary for there to be group health services, because health services of which the hon. Gentleman spoke cannot be borne by very small companies. Once group


health services are established and the member industries contribute to them, they become self-supporting.

Mr. D. Jones: Does not the noble Lord agree that small companies should respect the existing safeguards as well?

Lord Balniel: Certainly. I should not dream of questioning that companies, large or small, should respect the existing safeguards. I am not asking that the Industrial Injuries Fund should be used to establish an industrial health service. That is far outwith the remit of the fund. Would it not be possible for my right hon. Friend to finance research to a slightly greater degree than is being done at the moment so that when, at long last, we can establish an industrial health service on the Health Service Estimates much of the research which will be be necessary to put the service on a proper footing will be undertaken out of the Industrial Injuries Fund?

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Walter Edwards: I do not intend to take up much time because I know that several of my hon. Friends desire to speak. I want to make a short contribution on a topic which has not yet been mentioned, namely, the way in which the Act affects the thousands of people, probably the hundreds of thousands of people, employed on public service vehicles. They are bus conductors, conductresses, drivers and other people who come into contact with the public in the course of their duties. Some months ago I tabled a Question to the Home Secretary about people employed in the bus services who were receiving physical injury at the hands of private individuals whilst carrying out their duties on buses but who had been denied industrial injury benefit.
In many cases industrial injury benefit had been allowed until, I believe, 1958. A case occurred during that year of a bus conductor being physically assaulted on his bus while carrying out his duty, and his claim was refused by the local officer. Eventually the Transport and General Workers' Union took the case to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner ruled that although a bus driver or conductor may meet with an accident while carrying out his duties on his bus, if the accident were caused by a private

individual, under the terms of the Industrial Injuries Act no benefit payment could be made to him.
The question whether the accident arises out of and in the course of his employment seems to be left to the Commissioner, because it is not clearly defined in the Act. If a bus driver or conductor carrying out his duties as laid down by his employer receives an injury, whether it is caused by a passenger on the bus, or somebody from outside the bus throwing a bottle at the conductor when he is on the platform of the bus, or at the driver in his cabin, the driver or conductor is as much entitled as anybody else to industrial injury benefit. Ha has met with his accident while carrying out the duties that he is called upon to perform by his employers.
It has been said that we have not had a debate on this Act since 1948. It is obvious that during those thirteen years many flaws in the Act must have come to our attention. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that as and when these flaws are discovered it is the duty of the Government to see whether they can be remedied.
In the case of employees of bus services, I contend that the Act needs revising—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must do so now or I shall have to be keeping order on the point all night. Practically the only thing that we cannot discuss on this Question is legislation.

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry. At any rate, the Minister probably has my point. I am sure that it has been put to him before. He must appreciate as well as anybody that a certain amount of injustice is being imposed upon employees working on public service vehicles, as a result of the decision reached by the commissioner, and I ask him to look into the matter very fully and quickly, in order to take the necessary steps to see that the people concerned receive just treatment under the Act, in the same way as do other workpeople who come within its provisions.

6.25 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I shall be brief, because I want to hear what the Minister has to say, and because other hon. Members also


wish to speak. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was answering my hon. Friend he defended the non-acceptance of emphysema and bronchitis associated with work in the coal mines or in dusty occupations by stating that whereas it was suitable and reasonable for those diseases to be accepted in South Africa and Australia it was not suitable or reasonable here, because in those countries there was very little bronchitis, whereas it is notorious that there is a great deal of bronchitis here.
The Minister referred to Section 55 (2) of the original Act, which makes the position clear. I was glad to hear somebody from the Ministerial Bench accept, in principle, for the first time, what we have been pleading for a long time. In effect, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told us, "There is reason in what you are saying; of course there is such a thing as pulmonary disability, and if a man works for many years in a dusty occupation he may be expected to contract it, but we cannot accept it, because many people have bronchitis in this country any way."
Let us see what that means. In the first place, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that injustice is being regularly perpetrated merely because there is more bronchitis here than in Australia or South Africa, and the Ministry is prepared to allow the position to continue because it is difficult to distinguish between people who have contracted the disease as a result of inhaling dust for many years and those who have contracted it through other causes. I suggest that that is not the way to consider the problem. I know that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are sympathetic, but I hope that they will ask the Advisory Committee to consider the problem once more in view of modern opinion and also the indignation of workers throughout the country who are compelled to inhale dust at work throughout their lives.
There are many forms of emphysema. Miners' emphysema is not the only type. Furthermore, people other than miners contract a condition similar to miners' emphysema. But there is a type which is common to miners. We do not know why. It may be the result of a combination of a number of factors, such as working in a very hot atmosphere, work-

ing very hard, and inhaling a great deal of dust. Miners tend to get a focal emphysema, not necessarily with large bullae attached to the lung. It seems fairly apparent that there are also other forms of emphysema.
One type is caused through the inhalation of cadmium. That was put on the Schedule only recently, by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, following representations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), to whom I was able to give some assistance by doing a little research work and encouraging him. A few weeks' inhalation of the fumes of cadmium can cause death from emphysema. It is a different form, but it is emphysema. In those circumstances, if we cannot allow benefit in respect of anybody who suffers from emphysema without there being radiological evidence on an X-ray plate of silicosis or pneumoconiosis, why should we recognise the type of emphysema which causes death in a few weeks or months through the inhalation of cadmium fumes?
The time has come to say that, just as the miners examine every new entrant, will not take them unless they are fit and X-ray them regularly during their working life, if a miner is disabled the onus of proof that he should not receive benefit should lie with the employer. That is morally proper and the only truthful way of achieving our purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) raised a number of matters, and I sometimes deplore the fact that we are not able to get medical men who examine people to give their views in the witness box, where they can be cross-examined. We used to be able to do this and at one time I virtually lived in the court. I was cross-examined hour after hour and day after day for many years. I used to enjoy sitting next to counsel telling him what to ask the chap on the other side.
It is so easy now for medical men to give an opinion in, as it were, an abstract fashion. They know that there can be an appeal and that it could, ultimately, go to the commissioners. But it used to be very much better when, sometimes, doctors knew that they would have to defend their opinions in front of a judge and when they could be cross-examined by learned counsel. I do not want to


return to those days again. How wicked and horrible it was to sell pain and blood and barter it in the corridors outside a court-room and inside the court itself.
I appreciate that there is no such thing as perfection, and this Act is by no means perfect yet. There are still plenty of injustices attached to the Act, and many men suffer. I urge the Minister to take the whole question of pulmonary disability to his Advisory Council and to consider the matter afresh.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I do not intend to delay the House long, for I wish merely to comment on one or two points that have been raised. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) both called attention, and rightly so, to the strange situation that arises in many cases in industrial areas.
My right hon. Friend will realise that one must live in an industrial constituency, or near to one, to appreciate fully the turmoil that goes on in the minds of some of the people who are affected. At different times I have seen cases of men about whom, during their working lives, it has been acknowledged that they have been suffering from industrial diseases of one category or another. I refer particularly to pneumoconiosis in South Wales. In some cases, when death has occurred, there has been one finding by a coroner—apparently after receiving the best medical advice—that the man had definitely died from a scheduled disease, but in spite of this—again, on the best medical advice available—the claim has been rejected.
It is very hard to explain to dependants—the widows or others who are concerned—how this state of affairs has occurred. The hon. Member for Bedwellty suggested that one way out of it would possibly be to schedule other diseases and he cited, as an example, that of bronchitis. Hon. Members who hold this view should realise that there are real dangers in doing this in the case of a disease of this nature, not only for the reason cited by the Parliamentary Secretary. It would be extremely difficult to do this with a disease which is

suffered by so many members of the general population. It would be difficult to extend, for instance, bronchitis as widely as suggested because of this. However, I am open to arguments against my point of view.
I submit to my right hon. Friend that there is a case for a different interpretation. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that in both this sphere and in some aspects of war pensions it is as though the medical advisers are working in a water-tight compartment, without considering the full history of the person involved. In some of these cases I often wonder how they arrive at their decision about a man who has sustained a serious wound, or who has suffered during his working life from substantial industrial injury and who dies from a disease such as, for example bronchitis.
I say that there should be a different interpretation because the benefit of doubt should, in those cases, be completely on the side of the applicant. I realise that my right hon. Friend would probably say that that is already so, but my experience leads me to believe that it is not. That is my impression. I pay tribute to the care that is taken by the medical officers to find a definite cause of disability due to a particular disease or war injury, but I have come to the conclusion that when there is any doubt they tend to say, "This is not proven". On the other hand, they should say, "We cannot prove that this has not affected the man's health." That should be the approach and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be in a position to say that that will be the approach in future.
Several hon. Members have dealt with the question of research and the figure which was mentioned in another place, which was commented upon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) and my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). Expenditure out of the Industrial Injuries Fund on research is really frightening by reason of it being so small. Out of such a large fund—and we are discussing a fund that appears to be financially sound and has every prospect of remaining so—which embraces so many millions of pounds, only £3,900 has been devoted to special research of this nature. That is almost unbelievable.
The contribution of the Nuffield Foundation is comparatively greater and I hope that the Minister will assure the House that, in future, there will be a dramatic increase in the sum from the fund devoted to research. After all, it is a most desirable form of expenditure. It is not likely to benefit only individuals, but will probably bring a long-term benefit to the fund itself. It is a specialised form of research and a specialised fund, and I submit that there is a strong case far a much larger appropriation for the specific purpose of research.
The hon. Member far Burnley referred to the inadequacy of industrial health systems, particularly in relation to small firms. This is something to which we should direct our attention. I think that the hon. Member will agree that many of his criticisms were about the administration of the Factories Acts, rather than about the inadequacy of the present Industrial Injuries Fund.

Mr. D. Jones: The disregard of the Acts.

Mr. Gower: Disregard or non-enforcement.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree, on reflection, that there are not so many real inadequacies in the Factories Acts themselves, although it may be that the hon. Gentleman has made a point when he says that they are not always enforced. My impression is that the inspectors are not lacking in calling the attention of small firms to defects. Indeed, having some association with a small firm, I know that the inspectors came to our place regularly. Even the colour of a wall which has become dull or dingy has been commented on and has had to be remedied immediately. If the inspectors are so much "on the ball" in a minor matter like that, I feel that they are probably much more likely to spot something that is seriously wrong.
I take the point about the smaller firms. Sometimes they may not have the resources to provide what is needed on an adequate scale, and here we must look to the setting up of some form of assistance on a group basis. That may well be the only solution. I think that it can be said that this is an aspect of the Measure introduced in 1946 which

has vindicated itself again and again. Defects which exist can be remedied. We are learning from experience, and we should be confident that, with the experience we have gained, those defects can be put right very soon.

6.42 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: My hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) have spoken with intimate and expert knowledge on pneumoconiosis, the crippling disease which is the price that miners pay for coal, and it is a very heavy price indeed.
The Parliamentary Secretary in his admirable speech—and I congratulate him particularly on his Welsh accent—said that there had been a considerable improvement in recent years, which is perfectly true. But still the figures are grave enough in all conscience. There are 43,000 certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis, bringing tragedy to thousands of homes and families. Of those 43,000, 15,000 are in the South-Western Division which means, in the main, in the Welsh coalfields.
There is another significant feature. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the incidence of the disease falls most heavily on the older age groups, but we must not forget that the disability in some degree or other falls upon earlier age groups. I have looked up the ages of claimants before the medical boards, where the disease was first diagnosed, in 1959, the last year for which I could find figures. In the age group 35 to 39, 215 were diagnosed; in the age group 40 to 44, 260; in the age group 45 to 49, 437. There is a leap between those two near age groups. In the age group 50 to 54 the figure was 634. This disability afflicts men in their prime and in the fullness of life.
We all deplore the suffering that pneumoconiosis produces. How do we show our concern? Having listened to this debate, and having dealt with many cases in my own constituency, I cannot say in my heart that we meet their suffering in a generous or an openhearted spirit. It seems to me that we meet it in far too niggling and niggardly a way. We shelter behind restricted and narrow definitions. We have heard a great deal this afternoon about these definitions which lead to disagreements


between specialists and doctors and which, quite contrary to what the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said, do not give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. Indeed, the onus of proof is weighted heavily against the claimant.
We have heard of many instances this afternoon, particularly in the case of emphysema which is not scheduled as an industrial disease. Those suffering from dust, emphysema and bronchitis receive no benefit because those diseases are not classified as pneumoconiosis.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the difficulties and complications that have to be met if any change is to be made. One of my hon. Friends said that tuberculosis had already been scheduled. The Parliamentary Secretary agreed that that was so, and I understood him to say that tuberculosis was registered as an industrial disease in the case of nurses and hospital staff in contact with the infection. He said that this is a very specialised case, that it is easy of definition. Surely, it would be possible in the same way to have a restricted definition in the case of miners, so that when a miner suffers from bronchitis and emphysema and also has a proportion of dust in his lungs this can qualify as an industrial disease.
If this were done in this restricted category we should meet the arguments about bronchitis being almost a national disease, the comparisons with Australia and so on. We should include in the category the miner who has worked underground, who is suffering from bronchitis or emphysema and who also has a proportion of dust in his lungs.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to conditions which aggravated and reacted upon each other. I should have thought, although I have no medical knowledge at all, that bronchitis and emphysema would have acted as an aggravating factor upon dust in the lung. I would urge the Government to see whether a better definition is possible.
I should also like to refer to the matter that was raised by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) about research, and to say how much I agree with him about the ridiculously inadequate sums that are spent on research into the prevention of indus-

trial disease. The National Coal Board figures are very interesting in this respect. The amount spent on the National Coal Board on research is £170,000 per annum. This excludes money spent on regular X-ray examinations, dust suppression, sampling and measurement. But even that sum of £170,000, which is a considerable advance on the sums which have been quoted this afternoon, is still inadequate when one considers the immense problem with which it has to cope. Of course, a comparison of that sum with what is spent on research in military matters in this country presents a sad commentary on the society which we are seeking to defend.

Dr. Stross: My hon. Friend is, perhaps, being a little unfair. There are other Government Departments and organisations which are spending quite substantial sums. I have in mind the D.S.I.R., for instance, the Ceramics Association of North Staffordshire, and, of course, the Ministry of Labour.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: That is true, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that if one adds all those sums together the total is still quite inadequate for a great nation such as ours to devote out of its resources to medical research.
With all the hazards of the coal industry to life, limb and health I marvel not that there is a shortage of miners in certain parts of the country but that there are any men at all who are prepared to enter the industry. Having regard to all those hazards, having regard particularly to the disease of which we have been speaking, and in spite of all the improvements which are made—and let us not forget that mechanisation may in many instances increase the amount of dust in the mine—I beg the Minister to give us some hope that he will extend the definitions and the benefits which will bring new hope to the mining areas.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: The House is grateful for this opportunity of discussing the working of the Industrial Injuries Act. This is the first time since 1948 that the House has had an opportunity to discuss it, and, since then, there have been tremendous developments in all types of industry. In the pottery industry, of which my hon. Friend the


Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) speaks, there have, thank goodness, been new methods and processes for suppressing dust, but in the mining industry new methods and processes and the acceleration of production have often meant that dust hazards have been increased. In one of the industries of my own area of North Staffordshire, agriculture, greater hazards have been introduced as a result of the use of new insecticides, seed dusting, and so on.
We should be out of order in asking for legislation today, but I hope that, after this debate, the Minister will—I know that he will, because he takes his job to heart as much as any Minister in his office has ever done—look at the matter again, take advice and, if an opportunity comes to him in the near future, seek a means of removing some of the anomalies in our industrial injuries system.
I have in my hand a very valuable book written by Mr. John L. Williams on "Accidents and Ill-Health at Work". It was written this year, and I believe that it is the only analysis made of health in industry. Mr. Williams records a fact which is often forgotten. On page 5, he says:
Work accident figures have so far been compared with road and home accidents; a comparison with war casualties will surprise many readers. The I.L.O. has reported that in the 1939–45 war the rate of casualties in the British armed forces, including deaths, was 10,667 per month. In the same period casualties in British factories were 22,109 per month. In America, the figures were 24,896 per month for the armed forces and 160,747 per month for industrial casualties".
He then quotes a comment by the I.L.O., but I shall not detain the House by reading further from the book because right hon. and hon. Members are well informed on these matters.
I thought it well worth while to spotlight the fact that, during the war, the toll of casualties in industry was at that high rate. It is vital to ensure that our Industrial Injuries Act is as perfect as human ability can make it and that the onus of proof should not be on the weakest link in the chain of production, the worker, but should be on the employer or, in respect of soldiers, the Government.
I am greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) for spotlighting for the House and

the country the astounding fact that, despite the £238 million in the "kitty" of the Industrial Injuries Fund, the paltry sum of only £3,900 is used from the Fund for research. The noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) made the very valuable and constructive suggestion that research should be undertaken. It would not need legislation. Research should be undertaken, and we should dip into these large sums of money so as to prepare the way. I am sure that there are groups of sociologists, doctors and scientists who would be thrilled to have such a great opportunity which could pave the way for an occupational health service for this country.
At the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and some of his colleagues in the City of Stoke-on-Trent, we recently had in Stoke a very valuable conference of trade unionists, employers and representatives of the medical profession to discuss bronchitis and pneumoconiosis in North Staffordshire. A constructive little piece of work was done and, if funds were made available, a pilot scheme of research could have been undertaken in the area.
The fact that the incidence of bronchitis is six times greater in some of our industrial towns than it is in seaside places and that bronchitis is sometimes called the Englishman's disease, does not excuse us from going deeply into the question whether or not bronchitis should be one of the prescribed diseases. As a matter of logic, it follows that, if a nation is liable to bronchitis, men working in dusty industries have a greater liability to contract the disease, and the disease can, in turn, lead to aggravated forms of industrial disability.
It would be very remiss of me to detain the House further, but I thought it well worth while to emphasise the fact that, when we speak of injury and ill-health in industry, we often forget that, when the nation was at war, the toll of casualties in industry was higher than it was among the fighting men. The money that we spend on maintaining good health at work, on keeping men fit, is of as much strategic value to the country as any weapon one could devise.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: This afternoon, we have a lull between the high drama of yesterday and the controversies of the next few days, and it is characteristic of the House of Commons that we can turn from the great affairs of the nation to the sufferings and welfare of those who are injured at work or who contract diseases at their jobs.
I am astonished that this should be the first debate on industrial injuries that we have had these many years. I confess that I feel very blameworthy on that account. But I assure hon. Members that I shall contrive to see that there is another one before long. We are suffering from the short length of time we have chosen to take for this debate. It is obvious from the most useful speeches which have been made by hon. Members on both sides that we could have spent the whole day on this subject without wasting a single moment of it. I am sure that the Minister would have welcomed more time than he has asked for this afternoon to deal with many of the points raised in the debate.
I join the Parliamentary Secretary in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on his speech. It was full of practical experience and wise suggestions. If anything ever takes my hon. Friend away from the House of Commons, he will be sadly missed on occasions like this.
One of the drawbacks of a debate on this subject is that one has to master medical terms and Welsh place names. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on having mastered both. Earlier in the debate I sat between a Scot and a Welshman. When the Parliamentary Secretary sat down it was the Scot who said that I ought to congratulate him on his pronunciation of Welsh place names, which I do. I should apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who has sat through a good deal of the debate and who, I am sure, the House welcomed to our discussion.
I am very conscious of the fact that we are discussing the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill and that this is more an occasion for reviewing the work of Administration than for discussing

social reform. However, we can scarcely fail to look back over the thirteen years of the Industrial Injuries Scheme in our review of its operation. It was very welcome that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, the architect of the 1948 scheme, was able to hear some of the comments on its administration over this long period. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the scheme had stood the test of time. I think that that depends on what the test is. If the test is the adequacy of the benefits, it fails. If the test is the removal of fine distinctions in definition and diagnosis and the distressing and even agonising decision on qualification for benefit, it fails. If the test is the comprehensiveness of the schedule of industrial diseases, it fails. I could list a number of other tests on which it would be difficult to say that the scheme has fully stood the test of time.
The fact is that nothing to which the House of Commons agreed in 1948 is necessarily adequate today. Our social thinking is different. If our economic position is not different, it ought to be. There are new social horizons which we wish to reach. I should like the Minister to decide on a thorough and full-scale review of the Industrial Injuries Scheme and to invite evidence from those who have interesting and constructive ideas on it to put forward.
There is much about the scheme which cannot be dealt with in one debate. Nor can it be dealt with in sporadic discussions between the trade unions and the Minister, useful though they are. We must recognise that much of the difficulty in the administration of the Industrial Injuries Scheme arises from the substantial differences in the scope and level of the benefits between industrial injuries and National Insurance. If there were not those substantial differences in scope and level of benefits, it would not be necessary to argue whether the injury or disease fell within the scope of industrial injuries or National Insurance sickness or disablement benefit. I have no doubt that there will be considerable discussion in the days to come about whether those differences should be maintained.
I am sure that if uniformity meant lowering the work and value of the Industrial Injuries scheme to bring it into line with National Insurance, there would be strong opposition to it. What


workers might feel about the scheme when National Insurance benefits came abreast of industrial injury benefits, I do not pretend to know, but, while things are as they are, I think that we must pursue our aim to make the Industrial Injuries Scheme as satisfactory as we can. We may have to wait some time for the nation to adjust itself and its social thinking to better and more comprehensive social welfare, but in the field of compensation for the casualties of industry I am sure that there is a great deal of public sympathy and concern upon which we can draw in any reforms which we may put forward.
What are we in Britain spending on industrial injuries today?—£54 million a year, just £4 million more than we put into the football pools. That is a comparison between one form of spending and another. We on these benches shall not be satisfied until we have created in the minds of the British people new social wants which they can put alongside their consumer spending. None of us can feel that he is adequately providing for the casualties of industry with an expenditure as low as this. Here is a challenge to the affluent society.
Much has been said from both sides of the House about the need for research. Once more this has been pressed on the right hon. Gentleman very recently by the Trades Union Congress, whose useful work in this field we must not forget during its turmoils with other and more difficult problems. Here is the real and constructive work of the trade union movement in social welfare.

Mr. Tiley: Hear hear.

Mr. Houghton: The Minister gives it full weight because he never denies the T.U.C. access to him on matters of this kind.
I believe that there is some difficulty concerning the Minister's powers in the scope of research. As I understand, there is provision in Section 73 of the 1946 Act which enables the right hon. Gentleman to spend some money on research, but I understand that it must be related to the prescription of industrial diseases and not to general medical research. It is not the wider medical aspects of these matters into which the Minister has power to inquire under the Act, but, whether it lies within his power or comes within the scope of some other

Department, there is no doubt that there is a great and urgent need for much more research into occupational health.
The problem with which we are concerned is illustrated to some extent by the fact that the list of prescribed diseases has altered little in the six years since the Beney Report. It almost looks as though, unless some more research is undertaken, we have come to the end of the road of industrial diseases within the traditional definition. When we hear the Parliamentary Secretary refer to the proportion of industrial injuries and disablement benefits paid to those working in the coal mining industry, when we hear about the toll of life, limb and health in that industry and then we have to heed the medical and other problems of distinguishing between what is bronchitis, pneumoconiosis and emphysema, we wonder whether, in an industry of this kind, we should not schedule the lot.
Any disability which could be regarded as attributable to work in this dangerous and dirty industry surely should qualify for the highest benefit that we can give under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. If that conflicts with the narrow concept of the Industrial Injuries Scheme, we must widen it, and this is what I mean when I say that we have new horizons in this field which the House, on another and more suitable occasion, may wish to discuss.
There are minor points—minor in volume, but not in their application to individuals—and one point not mentioned in the debate, but which has been referred to me, is the increasing danger of workers being sent abroad to work for their employers there and who sustain accidents at their work abroad. The postion about their qualifications for benefit is not, apparently, very clear. Unless there is a reciprocal agreement with the country in which they are working, there seems to be some doubt whether they are entitled to claim anything under our own industrial injuries scheme.

Mr. Tiley: Lest it be thought that employers are sending men abroad without any cover—and I am not making a party point—it ought to be said that in almost every case adequate arrangements are made for them to be insured in the private insurance market for all accidents and illnesses.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Gentleman, ever alert, has anticipated me by 30 seconds. I was about to add that employers at their expense are covering, I hope—and it is up to the trade unions and the workers to see that they are—the risk of accident to workmen abroad, but this is an expense falling on the employer and is an economy to the Industrial Injuries Scheme. I do not think that it is right that they should pay twice over.

Mr. John Diamond: My hon. Friend is dealing with a most important point. The difficulty arises because a large number of employers are not doing this, although it is part of their responsibility. They are completely failing to do it, so that a man finds himself being sent abroad by his firm, and being injured receives no compensation because of the lack of reciprocity with the country concerned.

Mr. Houghton: I am greatly obliged to my hon. Friend. I will not dwell further on this point, which, clearly, is one of which the House should take note and which the Minister will no doubt consider.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) mentioned the provisions of cars, or tricycles, for the industrially disabled. The Trades Union Congress has asked the Minister more than once to make available the same type of transport for the industrially disabled as is available for the war disabled, and that is not an unreasonable request. We believe that the Minister has power to do it under Section 75 of the Act.
There is another point, which has been put to the Minister more than once, on the expense of attendance at hospitals, and incidental expenses of that kind, which fall on the disabled person. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty went into the whole question of pneumoconiosis and the problem of definition and diagnosis there, clearly a most difficult field, upon which the House might wish to see adequate provision made for those who suffer. This is a dreadful disease, which is contracted in the service and work of the nation, and anything less than liberal allowances to men who are to live with this suffering, probably for the rest of their lives, cannot be justified in this House at this time.
I come now to this very difficult question of the special hardship allowance. We must recognise that when this allowance was first introduced it was expected to play a much smaller part in the scheme than it is playing today. It is like National Assistance, which was meant to be the net that caught those who suffered special hardship, so this kind of provision was made for them. Now, we find that the number of special hardship allowances being paid is about 100,000 at any time, and 30,000 or 34,000 more every year come on the books. Why? It is because of the widening gap between earnings and social payments.
I believe that I am right in saying that in 1946 the benefits were a higher proportion of wages than is the case today. I know that the change of basis for compensation from loss of earnings to loss of faculty was a revolutionary change, and that it was thought to be desirable at that time. I think that it is still regarded as the main concept which the scheme should fulfil, but it is no good overlooking the fact that the money loss to many injured people is grievous indeed, and that it is directly attributable to their injuries. They have suffered more than loss of faculty. They have suffered greatly in their capacity to earn their living, and, in reviewing the Industrial Injuries Scheme, we cannot disregard that important aspect of adequate compensation.
Suggestions have been made this afternoon about marrying loss of faculty with loss of earnings in some kind of combined scheme. That is one of the matters which probably requires much closer examination than we can give it either on this or on a future occasion, but one thing I am disappointed to report is that the Minister has been asked in vain by the T.U.C. at least to make an inquiry into the actual loss of earnings suffered by those who are receiving special hardship allowances. What is the duration of the special hardship allowance? What is the nature of the disability which, on the whole, seems to give rise to this claim for the special hardship allowance? What is the age of those who are claiming the allowance? Could we know the content of the 100,000 who are receiving the special hardship allowance? We may learn some lessons from inquiries into these matters.
I am sure that the Minister will agree—although we all see how difficult it is, and at this moment we are not ready to suggest, even if it were in order to do so, what shape the reform should take—that we have not by any means heard the last of the special hardship allowance. I recognise, too, that a substantial problem arising from the special hardship allowance arises from the administration by the right hon. Gentleman's own Department. In the past, under workmen's compensation, it was the employers who had something to say about a worker's incapacity to earn his pre-accident wages. In present circumstances, it is the Ministry which has to decide the question of incapacity or inability to earn the pre-accident wages.
We all agree that the Minister's local officers, zealous and capable as they are, are not always in a very good position to judge the real merits of the case, and we must not overlook that problem. It may be, therefore, that it would be necessary to bring the employers into this rather more than the administration of the allowance requires. These are big and important matters, and I should be trespassing on the time of the House if I were to spend further time in discussing them.
I will conclude by saying that those of us who have staged this debate feel very well rewarded for the short time which we have been able to spend on it. We are grateful for the mass of useful information which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to us, and it is now my duty to make way for the Minister, who, no doubt, will give us some more.

7.20 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) was unfair both to himself and to the House when he said that this was the first debate on industrial injuries since the passage of the 1946 Act. It is true that it is, in my recollection, the first general debate, but the House has discussed in considerable detail, in the course of, among other things, legislation, certain aspects of the scheme. Although I find a general debate of this sort even more valuable than that inevitably piecemeal discussion, I felt that in fairness to the House I should set the record right, since some at least of our

fellow countrymen outside might regard it as a serious dereliction of parliamentary duty if we let this vitally important subject rest undisturbed for thirteen years.
Certainly, as the Minister responsible for the administration of the Scheme, I found this debate extremely helpful. Discussions in this House always seem to to be so in inverse ratio to the controversy which they generate. As the hon. Member for Sowerby said, this debate has been a refreshing and agreeable interlude in the course of our recent discussions.
It is my remaining duty, in the limited time which the hon. Gentleman's and my own self-denying ordinance imposes upon us, to answer to the best of my ability as many as possible of the points made in the course of this debate. It may well be the case that, for that reason, I shall fail to deal with all the important points that have been raised from both sides, but I will scrutinise HANSARD tomorrow and endeavour to write to the hon. Members whose arguments or points of view I have not been able fully enough to deal with this evening.
I should like quickly to take up one or two things which the hon. Member for Sowerby said. He understated, for understandable reasons, the amount we are expending this year on industrial injuries. The expected provision in the current year is just under £64 million. What might have misled the hon. Member was that the rates of benefit have been substantially raised from the beginning of the year; that puts up the expenditure. There is the secondary factor that the number of those drawing these benefits tends to rise.
Concerning the rates of benefit, it is only fair, not merely to the Government, but to the community as a whole, to point out how substantially these have been progressively increased over the years. The initial rate of benefit for injury, and for the 100 per cent. rate of disablement benefit, was 45s. Today, it stands at 97s. 6d. Taking the comparison with ten years ago, that shows an increase, not in cash terms, but in real terms, of 59 per cent. That, at least, is an indication that all those who have been concerned with this matter have taken the view that, as opportunity and occasion offered, advances should be made on this


front. Again, it is only fair to put that on record.
What has emerged clearly from this debate is that the profound nature of the change which the 1946 Act brought about was perhaps not generally appreciated at the time. That is a particularly interesting reflection for me, because I am, I think, one of the few hon. Members present tonight who was a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with the 1946 Bill. If one is to get in focus some of the detailed points that have been made this evening, one must stress the profound nature of that change, because, as it has worked out, the various points where the shoe pinches have become evident.
First, there was the change from the workmen's compensation system of wage-related provision to a system based on loss of faculty, on the analogy of the war pension provision. That is an enormous change. Its effect have been in some measure obscured or mitigated by the expansion—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby—to a degree that would not have been expected in 1946 or 1948, of the scope of special hardship allowance. We must now be quite near the point at which further substantial expansions in that would alter the nature of a scheme based, not only upon loss of faculty, but on flat-rate contributions. It is important to realise that the difficulties and the hard cases that some of us see are due basically to that change from a wage-related to a loss-of-faculty basis.
The other profound change was the change that resulted from the introduction of a social service at a preferential or priority level of benefit. As the hon. Member for Sowerby said, most of the problems that we have discussed this afternoon derive directly from that state of affairs. To get this in proportion, it is equally important to record that in the sort of cases which we have been discussing in which industrial injury benefit has been refused, in the generality of cases that has not meant that the injured person or the widow has gone without help from the social services. It has meant—I do not underrate its importance—only that those people have not drawn social service benefits at the preferential industrial injury rate.
For that reason, it is, in my view, extremely important to preserve the link between an industrial and an occupational cause and the payment of this type of benefit. If one widens the scope of the scheme to the points at which ordinary people cannot see a clear-cut connection between the industrial injury benefit and an occupational disease or injury, it becomes difficult to defend a state of affairs in which somebody injured at work gets a higher rate of benefit than somebody injured in the street on the way to work. Although, as the hon. Member for Sowerby said, it is an interesting speculation what would happen if the present social service benefits were raised to the industrial injury level, I cannot help hazarding the thought that the disappearance of the differential for the industrially injured might arouse an extremely critical reaction, not least in the ranks of organised labour.
Therefore, some of the difficulties with which we are faced in the administration of the scheme derive from the related facts of a preferential rate of benefit and of the necessity, if that preferential rate of benefit is to be maintained and justified, to maintain a causal connection between it and the injury or the accident or disease that has given rise to it.
I am grateful for the tributes which have been properly paid to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. One which I thought was unmerited was that concerning his Welsh pronunciation. As one who served in the Welsh Guards for thirteen years, if he could not pronounce properly in Welsh after that, it would be a serious reflection on his linguistic ability. The House will, however, agree that my hon. Friend's speech this afternoon showed what the House has lost over the years from the enforced silence which enwrapped him when he was a member of the Whips' Office. We had, too, a vivid indication of the insight that the Industrial Injuries Scheme gives us into our industrial system as a whole in the spectacle of my hon. Friend and his not inconsiderable height negotiating a 2 ft. 3 in. coal seam. I should like to have seen it.
Now, I come to the detailed points. My noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), my hon. Friend the


Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) all touched on the question of my use of my powers under Section 73 of the Industrial Injuries Act in respect of research. I think there was a little misunderstanding underlying at any rate some of the comments which were then made. Fundamental research is not a business, of course, of my Department. It is only, as I understand the Section, research related to the prescription of industrial disease which brings me, if I may put it so crudely, into the picture at all.
Basic medical research lies, as I understand it, with my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council with his responsibility for the Medical Research Council, and related activities. In parenthesis I may say that the very interesting work at the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit at Llandough which has been referred to more than once this afternoon is, of course, conducted by and under the Medical Research Council. Then there is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who has general responsibility in the health field, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour with his responsibilities in respect of industrial health. Therefore the very small figures—and I concede them at once—which my noble Friend gave to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in another place the other day are not an indication of the total weight of research which is taking place on the all-important question of prevention of disease.
Section 73 gives me a subsidiary or auxiliary power, but I will say, as I did say on another occasion, that if any scheme really coming within the Section is put to me where I think research would serve a proper purpose, I have a very open mind, and I should be very willing to consider it. But I must make it clear that I cannot set up a rival medical research installation in competition with my noble or my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the Minister aware that in North Staffordshire the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and others have initiated a conference on industrial health? I wonder whether, if in North Staffordshire we put a constructive project to the Minister, he might assist it, or, at

any rate, consider it now or in the near future.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I very much doubt, judging from what the hon. Member says, whether a project for the promotion of industrial health would come within the Section. I very much doubt it. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me I will consider it, but I do not want to hold out false hopes because it was in fact the industrial health service which Lord Taylor was concerned about, and it was that kind of project which was clearly outside the Section. I do not want to give the hon. Member any unnecessary trouble in undertaking a fruitless enterprise.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) raised an interesting and important point. He knows, and the House knows, that individual cases are not decided by me. Parliament in its wisdom has placed the decision in individual cases with statutory authorities with a system of appeal, and my only chance of altering those decisions depends upon precisely that kind of action which, Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom you have indicated we are forbidden to discuss this afternoon. Therefore, I can only say that I appreciate the particular case which the hon. Gentleman has referred to although it may not necessarily be a case which the new Commissioner will feel bound to follow. I appreciate that it raises a certain amount of disquiet particularly among transport workers, and all I can say is that I have noted that disquiet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) raised again the question of prevention of industrial disease and injury. I do not want for one moment to seem to depart from the sensible and practical view that prevention is in this matter so infinitely more valuable than compensation payments afterwards, but I must remind him, as I am sure he knows, that this, of course, takes me outside my scope, and into that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who will, no doubt, note what my hon. Friend has said. Again I think my hon. Friend was attributing to me a function of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in connection with tricycles but, no doubt, my right hon. Friend will have noticed that.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) alarmed me a great deal when he raised the question of legibility. Any question of the legibility of anything emerging from my Department arouses in me a fear that it may have a personal connotation. I understand that the difficulty does in fact arise, because what are sent out are photostat copies of documents bearing the handwriting of members of the medical profession. I think I have said enough to indicate where the difficulty lies, and I can only say that I will look into it to see if there is anything within my power which can be done. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that few things can be more infuriating than to receive an official document which one is incapable of reading.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield raised the question of special hardship allowance. I have already touched on that and I do not want to repeat myself, though I thought his comments, if he will allow me to say so, were extremely interesting and helpful. As regards Dupuytren's contracture, the present state of medical opinion seems to me to point against it having an occupational context, but it is still under study, and, needless to say, I shall keep that point in mind.
Coming last but certainly not least to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), whose speech, if he will allow me to say so, I found most interesting, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary dealt with most of his points, but there were one or two which he was good enough to leave to me. First was the question of notification of a man examined by one of the pneumoconiosis medical panels and placed in radiological category one, that is to say, found not to have pneumoconiosis but to have some dust on the lung. Of course, some dust on the lung, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West reminded us, is a normal experience of city dwellers, but the hon. Gentleman posed a very important point to which I have in fact been giving some consideration—whether there would be any practical difficulty in sending each man examined a brief note to say, "You have been examined and are found to be free of pneumoconiosis"? But the problem arises—perhaps in one case out

of a hundred—where the X-ray, when it does not reveal pneumoconiosis, reveals something else, perhaps something even more sinister.
It would be very wrong—and I am sure the hon. Member will be with me on this—to write to a man out of the blue and tell him he has got cancer of the lung. On the other hand, if we were to make a practice of writing a letter which says, "You are free of pneumoconiosis", and though in such a case the letter would be literally true, I think we might be subject to justifiable criticism if we wrote to a man excluding one complaint but ignoring the existence of a more serious one. It is a difficult problem and I am anxious to deal with it. I think it may be possible to evolve a formula which does relate specifically to pneumoconiosis and does not purport to give a medical opinion on the state of a man's lungs from other points of view. I hope to meet some of the difficulties about that, and it is indeed a matter about which, as the hon. Member may perhaps know, I have been in consultation with outside bodies.
The hon. Member raised the question of the right of appeal on diagnosis questions in pneumoconiosis cases to the medical appeal tribunals. As he knows, when I introduced that right of appeal in respect of other industrial diseases a year or two ago I made it clear in public, and direct to those concerned, that it would not be possible to introduce it in pneumoconiosis cases for the time being. The reason was, briefly, a shortage of qualified men to provide the medical consultants to sit on those tribunals. The members of pneumoconiosis medical panels are, as I think he will agree, some of the most qualified people in the world, and it would be just no use to provide for appeal to a higher body whose medical members consisted of people of lower medical qualifications in this particular respect than the panels appealed from. There is equally the fact, as he knows, that the National Coal Board's survey is likely to throw up a considerable volume of work for pneumoconiosis panels, and so that prevents me from transferring members of those panels to sit occasionally on medical appeal tribunals.
Therefore I made it clear at the beginning that in my judgment it would not be possible to provide this appeal


until the National Coal Board survey had been completed, which I understand will be two or three years ahead. I can only say to the hon. Member, as I said earlier, that I am conscious that logically it seems anomalous that this extremely difficult complaint should be the only one in respect of Which appeals on questions of diagnosis are not possible. I should like to put that matter right as soon as possible.
We are taking considerable stops to recruit to pneumoconiosis panels highly qualified medical men. It is not rapid progress because, frankly, we only want the best for this work. We have succeeded in recruiting several in the last year or two and the completion of the National Coal Board's survey may help us on that point.
I have found this an interesting debate, the report of which I shall read not merely from the point of view of showing proper courtesy to hon. Members whose points I have not been able to deal with, but also from the point of view of study and reflection in connection with my duties.
It is no reflection whatsoever on the framers of the original scheme, or even on those who sat in Opposition in Standing Committee, that various difficulties have shown themselves. We have managed to put some of them right. Others can be varied only by that method of proceeding which we cannot discuss this afternoon. I should like to thank the House for the debate and say that I, and those who advise me, will undoubtedly find it valuable and helpful. I hope that the debate will also have communicated to those outside the House the feeling that on both sides of the House this is a scheme which we regard as one about which we can differ on methods and expedients but which we regard as a measure of social value and help, and which we have every intention not merely of keeping as an effective instrument but of improving as the years pass.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE

7.43 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: Two years ago I raised the subject of defence in the debate on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill and last year there was an official debate. I do not apologise for doing now what I did two years ago, because we are on the eve of departing for the Summer Recess and it is important that our fellow-citizens should know what we are thinking and doing about this subject.
There are talks of crisis in Berlin. We have troops committed in Kuwait. We have had important speeches from President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev. We are half way through the year and we are going away and there will be no opportunity until the debate on the Queen's Speech to deal with this subject unless we seize this opportunity. I am grateful, therefore, to the Under-Secretary of State for War and I apologise to him for taking up his time. I am grateful to him not only for attending to the debate tonight but for many personal kindnesses shown to me and to my constituents from the Army who have come to see me.
If I have some hard things to say they are not addressed to the hon. Gentleman. They are over his head. My prime purpose is not to say hard things but to tell the truth as I see it, and to give the House, and, through HANSARD, my fellow countrymen the benefit of a debate on this matter because I am interested in it. I also have to thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) because I shall be able to make the same speech as I have made before. My conception of democracy does not arise from a belief in the sanctity of a majority decision but from my belief that there are only two ways of running human affairs, either by force or by persuasion. Because I believe in persuasion, I am by nature an educator and I want to elicit the facts.
There is a great lack of interest in this subject yet it seems to me to go right to the heart of our affairs. We have an economic crisis and yet during the lifetime of the present Administration £15,000 million have been spent on defence. If we now had only a fraction of that money all our economic difficulties would disappear. I believe that


we cannot understand the controversy about the Common Market or the economic crisis unless we get to grips with two things. The first is the decision on German rearmament and the second the proposals in the 1957 White Paper.
My version of affairs in this connection runs something like this. Through the kindness of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I went to Washington and Brussels and sat in at the Defence Ministers' Conference when there had been a remit from the Foreign Ministers about acceptance of the principle of German rearmament. One the eve of that conference, M. Pleven came out with the Pleven Plan because France knew something about German militarism. The French came out with the preposterous suggestion of integration of German and French forces at unit level. It was a piece of nonsense which did not make any progress.
The French were frogmarched, as many in this House were frogmarched by ignorance of the facts, into acceptance of German rearmament on the basis of a pledge given by the Government, with the agreement of some of my hon. and right hon. Friends, in October, 1954, to maintain on the Continent of Euroep four divisions or their equivalent. I opposed it not because I am against the arming of Germans as such but because we knew from the start, on information about the military factors that we should welsh on that undertaking and because I believed that the consequences would be grave.
French opinion said, "Right. If we have to integrate with the Germans, let us tie our economies together". So we had the idea of the Common Market. The Foreign Office and the Treasury, true to form throughout my lifetime, managed to be wrong on every issue connected with it. Firstly, they did not believe that it would come off. Then they believed that if it did come off it would take a long time. Thirdly, they believed that if it did come off after a long time its effects would be limited. In fact, it has come quickly and it is overwhelmingly successful. The position now is that this country, "bust" economically and from the military point of view in a derisory situation, has to crawl on its belly into the Common Market because it is afraid of the consequences if it cannot fit itself in.
As for the four divisions, we cannot pay for them and we do not have them. The four divisions became over night 77,000 men. The 77,000 became 64,000. They became 55,000 and then they became 45,000. That was too much for the Council of N.A.T.O. and so we pay lip service to the 55,000 but have never had them there, though even today on the record they are 55,000. In fact, they are about 50,000 and from four divisions we have come down to less than three. It is nonsense to say that these are capable of fighting or holding an aggression. They could not fight for more than thirty days. They have no more than thirty days' supplies. They completely lack services and they are committed to fighting only one kind of war—an atomic war. We are told that we must arm to parley and must speak from strength. I believe that there is no way of getting this right except by getting the great mass of our fellow countrymen to understand to what they are committed. I reel off these figures but they are all available either in the White Paper or in Ministerial Answers. There are many other things about which there is ignorance on both sides of the House. As an example, I noticed in the Guardian of 20th July a report that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), with representatives of A.S.S.E.T., were launching a campaign for a British supersonic transport aircraft. This struck a chord in my memory, and I looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place of 9th May, 1957, when another place was debating the 1957 White Paper. On that occasion Lord Tedder said:
I believe that"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is not going to quote a speech made in another place by anybody other than a representative of the Government.

Mr. Wigg: It was not only a previous Session, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but a previous Parliament. This took place several Parliaments back. I am quoting from a speech made on 9th May, 1957. I am sorry if you thought that I was seeking to breach the rules of order. I have consulted Erskine May on the subject.
On 9th May, 1957, the House of Lords was debating the 1957 White Paper. This is what Lord Tedder had to say on the subject of a British supersonic transport aircraft in relation to the White Paper:
I believe that no British supersonic manned bomber means, quite literally, no British supersonic civil aircraft."—,[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th May, 1957; Vol. 203, c. 588.]
Perhaps the greatest criticism of our civilisation is that we can renovate and keep up to date our basic industries only through preparation for war, and that as soon as we in the West start to think in terms of disarmament and the redeployment of our labour force through cutting down arms we get into an economic crisis. If it be true—here I accept the evidence of Lord Tedder—that there can be no supersonic civil transport aircraft because there is no bomber, it is a very grievous state of affairs. I mention it because that speech four years ago is now forgotten. In the course of what I have to say I want to relate, broadly speaking, the current happenings which interest me to the 1957 White Paper and what actually exists at present.
The next subject on which I want to touch is the operation in Kuwait. Again I have earned the strictures of the hon. Member for Stroud in commenting on it. He said he thought that I was unfair or was making much of the difficulties of the Army. I do not complain, but it seems to me to be a totalitarian argument. That is the reason why I refer to it now, not because I think it important but because every hon. Member, particularly on this side of the House, finds himself whenever he criticises the Armed Services exposed to the charge from the other side of in some way being disloyal. When I criticise the Armed Forces I am criticising the Minister—not those serving in the Army and not the Army. I would not appeal to the hon. Gentleman's generosity in asking him to believe that the last thing I would wish to do would be to harm the Army, but if he believes in our democracy really deep down, I ask him to refrain from that kind of argument, not because it hurts me—I can look after myself—but other hon. Members may find it a little difficult to meet his gibes and the gibes of his hon. Friends when they criticise the actions of the Service Departments.
Let us look in some detail at the Kuwait operation. The first and most

remarkable thing about it is the similarity in treatment by my right hon. Friends between this issue and Suez and Jordan. As to the debâcle of Suez, we had the dispatches of General Keithley published in September, 1957. I tried unremittingly to get a debate on those dispatches, because they revealed, in General Keithley's words, a serious shortage of tank landing ships and transport aircraft. I was unsuccessful. Finally, I had to raise the subject on the Adjournment at the end of 1958.
In the case of Jordan the situation was precisely the same. We crawled into Jordan and were sustained there by American transport aircraft. We had gone into Suez with an American antitank weapon because our own was no good, and we went into Jordan with the 106 mm. gun.
Here we go into Kuwait in the early part of July, and, despite all the pressure—I raised the question on many occasions—again we had no debate. I should have thought that it was absolutely fundamental that when we were engaged in circumstances which might lead to war, to a conflagration on a very large scale, one of the first actions should be that the Government should be answerable not only to the House of Commons but to the public in general. This did not happen.
I have done some researches into this business, and I must confess that I am a little amazed. Let us deal with the start of the position itself. On 3rd July the Prime Minister came to the House and made a statement which was cordially received by my right hon. Friends. What he said was this:
On 29th and 30th June, evidence accumulated from a number of sources that reinforcements, especially reinforcements of armour, were moving towards Basra In these circumstances, the Ruler felt it his duty to make a formal urgent request for British assistance under the exchange of Notes. This he did on the morning of 30th June.
Later in his statement the Prime Minister came back again to this important date. He said:
What we had to do on Friday was to decide whether to take certain action which, I hope, will lead to the Government of Iraq having second thoughts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1961; Vol. 643, c. 1006–12.]
I invite the attention of the House to the first words used by the Prime Minister. He said that reinforcements of


armour were moving towards Basra. I should have thought that that meant—it certainly meant that to me at the time—that there was armour in the vicinity of Basra, that if it was moving towards Basra it was somewhere near there, and Basra would be the point of deployment if an attack was to be made upon Kuwait. If I am wrong about this, I invite hon. Gentleman on either side to interrupt me, but that is honestly what I thought it meant.
I then put down a Question to the Minister of Defence asking him for some more information about Kuwait, but I did not get it. Again I am not complaining about his treatment of me or the way in which it was done, but on 11th July, the Minister of Defence came to the House on what was not his day, and answered Question No. 69 at the end of Questions. We had four columns of supplementary questions and replies, and then the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be circulating the rest of it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
When I read it the next day the first thing that struck me was that the Minister's statement about General Kassem's statement on 28th June was wrong. Again, in my humility, I felt that perhaps he was right, and I made a prolonged search to find out what was said on 28th June, but I could not find anything.
I would draw attention to the words used by the Minister of Defence. He did not talk about reinforcements near Basra. He moved away from that. There is no definite statement at all. He said:
It was decided, in the light of indications that Iraqi forces in the Basra area"—
I emphasise those words—
were being reinforced with tanks … "[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 214.]
Again I assumed, as I had assumed from the Prime Minister's statement, that there was a reinforcement here which was threatening the Kuwait border.
I continued my researches. I got hold of a copy of the statement which was issued by the Kuwait delegation to the United Nations, an official document issued by the Kuwait authorities. This said:
The threat was manifest and menacing, leaving no shadow of doubt that an immediate and forceful annexation was intended.

That referred to General Kassem's statement of 25th June. It went on:
In the last week of June reports were received from many sources of preparations being made to move units and a tank regiment from Baghdad to Shaiba …"—
That is, over 500 miles—
… an area near to Basra, and Basra is only a few miles from the border of Kuwait.
A further piece of evidence came from Mr. Ian Colvin a distinguished correspondent whose reporting is first class. I have never met him. On Saturday, 22nd July, he said that he had been to Basra and wrote:
… for 20 miles at least behind the border there is nowhere that armour or motorised troops could be hidden or housed. Roads and all approaches to the front are bare and open.
Among the Britons in Basra I have not found one who has seen tank transporters in the past month.
So the story told by the Prime Minister begins to wear a little thin. Let us go on a bit. Of course, the Prime Minister always has a little bit of luck. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) took up a point which I had made in the New Statesman a fortnight ago. How fortunate it was that H.M.S. "Bulwark" happened to be not in Singapore but in Karachi in the week during which all this happened. It is not widely known that "Bulwark" missed the tide, but she sailed on Thursday, before the events. Even then it would have been nine hours earlier had it not been for an odd happening.
That, again, is not the whole story however. I know little of technical things except for what I pick up. But I am certain that even the present Secretary of State for Air could not find a magic carpet to lift a "Centurion" tank by air. Yet on the morning of 1st July, as if by magic, "Centurions" were in Kuwait. Let me not rely here upon my own evidence. The Sunday Pictorial correspondent reported on 10th July that he had been told that some of the tanks were in Kuwait all the time, waiting for crews. That is not my information however. The "Centurions" came from a squadron of the Royal Armoured Corps in Aden, and I should have thought that the tanks were being pedalled backwards and forwards from Aden to Bahrain.
I think that two tank landing ships were involved—the "Empire Glow" and


the "Striker". I am prepared to believe that, by a stroke of luck, there were tank landing ships in Bahrain, but here are reports which do not suggest that the Prime Minister was lucky. In this particular week not only were the ships there but lots of tanks as well. These are fortuitous happenings which, on investigation, do not stand up.
The matter is clear if one examines it. I learned my geography the hard way. I know the distance from Basra to Bagdad because I have walked it. I know that one cannot fly from Cyprus to Bahrain unless one over-flies Turkey and Iran. I was pretty sure that these Beverleys, with their very high payloads which fall sharply if one asks them for too much, did not fly round the corner but over Saudi Arabia. I put down a Question asking for the time and dare on which permission was given by the Iranian and Saudi Governments to fly over their territory.
In the case of Iran, I am quite prepared to believe that permission was given, because we are on close and cordial terms with the Iranians. But we have had no relations with Saudi Arabia since Suez. I believe, however, that the Beverleys over-flew Saudi territory. Again, this matter had a chequered history. My Question was passed to the Foreign Office. The Answer was "No". Yet I would have thought that, if everything had been straight and above board, the Government would not have been afraid to answer.
I also asked for the times and dates of sailing of the "Bulwark" from Karachi and of the Centurions from Aden. I was told that it would not be in the public interest to give that information about the Centurions, but the Government gave me the information about the "Bulwark"—because I could have got it from Lloyds, and they could not very well withhold it from me.
So much for the operation. I am mystified. I can have a guess about it, but I shall not guess because I am not sure. I can only recall the facts in this House and point out that something needs explaining. I should have thought that on such a matter—remembering that we are still committed—the Government would be only too anxious to give information. We have managed to drag out of them information about the cost. It was £1 million. I asked the Lord Privy

Seal how much the Ruler of Kuwait, who has £400 million in London, contributed to the operation. The answer was that the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to add to his statement.
I suggested that the operation was not quite the success that the Press had made it out to be—and I rightly pay tribute here to the Prune Minister's public relations department, including his chief public relations officer, the Minister of Defence. Let us see what happened. Involved were 7,000 troops and 700 tons of stores. I want now to recall the American operation in the early part of this year, which I referred to during debate on the Air Estimates. It was called "Operation Big Slam". The Americans thought that it was a failure, and there were bitter complaints about it, because they could only lift 11,000 tons of stores. The reason why we could not lift stores in Kuwait or to anywhere else at that distance is because we have not got a long distance freighter. This is another by-product of the 1957 White Paper.
In "Operation Starlight" the amount we lifted by air was derisory. Yet we find the Minister of Defence claiming that everything in the garden is lovely. I do not think that it is. I happen to have a letter written by the Minister of Defence, not to me—he does not give information to me—but to one of his constituents. The right hon. Gentleman did not know to whom he was writing. I shall not reveal the name of the person concerned, but the letter is signed with the right hon. Gentleman's own fair name. He wrote:
If we had to mount a large operation today it could be done almost entirely by air.
Does any hon. Member, including the Minister himself, believe that statement? Does any hon. Member believe that we could mount a major operation today entirely by air? Of course not. Nor shall we be able to do so for many years. In May last year—again with only a handful of hon. Members present—I raised the question of the Britannia, which was "soaped" across the British public. To start with, the aircraft was called the Britannic because the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—then the Minister responsible—regarding his fellow countrymen as "suckers", wanted to convey the impression that the derivation was from


the Britannia, although one was a low wing and the other a high wing aircraft. It did not get very far, but last year ten were ordered. None of them has flown. They will not fly until next year, and then only if they are lucky. Does the House know what the Royal Air Force already calls this plane? They call it the "Short Harland Saviour", because without it Short Harland would have gone bust. They will cost between £2¾ million and £3 million each. It is a turbo-prop aircraft. It is out of date today, before it ever takes off into the air. The project was only entered into because it suited the Government's political book to have a number of aircraft built as a kind of sop to Northern Ireland, regardless of the defence consequences to this country.
Basically what was revealed by Kuwait was that without something like the Belfast we can do nothing. The plane is now called the Belfast. That is presumably because it is hoped that we shall forget its earlier names. Until the Belfast comes along we can do nothing. It is not only a question of the shortage of transporter aircraft.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Before the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) leaves the topic of Kuwait, perhaps he will tell the House what his complaint is about it. Does he say that it was a success and he is angry about that, or does he say that it was a failure and he is angry about that? I have not followed what all these figures are leading up to.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has not followed. I am angry about neither. I am saying that I am not at all sure that the reasons given by the Prime Minister are true reasons.

Mr. Kershaw: True reasons about what?

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not following me. I do not want to go all over this again. It should be plain, even to someone of his intelligence, that there is some doubt about all this, because on 3rd July the Prime Minister said that there were troop movements in Basra, whereas the Iraq delegate made no such claim and said that they were in Bagdad and the

correspondent of the Daily Telegraph said that he had been down to Basra and nobody had seen a tank transporter.
I wanted to keep this friendly, but I will now deal with the Minister of Defence. He has got a record. On 2nd March last year when he made a mistake—or what he thought was a mistake—on German rearmament he altered the record. He had HANSARD altered. On this occasion he found a new technique: he circulated details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He ascribed a date to General Kassem which had no validity and which he subsequently dismissed as a clerical error. I am not saying that it is either wrong or right. I have been very careful about that. I guess the reasons for this, but I do not know. I do not know what prompted the Government's action, but as the hon. Member for Stroud has pressed me I will say that perhaps the Ruler of Kuwait was getting a little "dicey" and was threatening to withdraw his sterling balance from London. That is a possible reason. The hon. Member for Stroud might care to ask the Treasury about that. We are a little short in the till at the moment, and the movement of £400 million at that time might have been awkward. Therefore, we might easily have put 7,000 troops into Kuwait. I am sure that it was for no military reason. I have already demonstrated that the Centurions could not be carried.

Mr. John Hall: Does the hon. Member believe that the Ruler of Kuwait would invite British troops in for the reasons he has given?

Mr. Wigg: If anyone believes that the Ruler of Kuwait is a free agent in that sense, I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who has a copy of the letter written by the Ruler of Kuwait inviting us in. I was anxious not to speculate but to limit myself to what I know. Hon. Members have pressed me to give a possible reason. I do not know what the reason is. It is up to the Government to tell us. If the Government do not tell us, all I can do is to state the evidence. The hon. Member for Stroud wanted to know what my views are. First, there is the shortage of transporter aircraft. He does not need to rely on me for that. There is also the statement in the Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend has referred to the Answer given about the message from the Ruler of Kuwait. Can he explain this last passage in the message from the Ruler:
Please accept my best wishes. May God preserve you."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1961; Vol. 1961, c. 113.]
Was the Ruler thinking of the military situation or the financial crisis?

Mr. Wigg: Again I do not know. I read that part of the letter. I want merely to deal with the facts. In answer to the two hon. Members who wanted to know what the situation was and how I regard it, I will turn to the Sunday Telegraph, which supports their cause and not mine. In its issue of 23rd July it said:
Inadequate R.A.F. air transport. It will take at least another two years before R.A.F. Transport Command is strong enough to meet any fierce flare-up of aggression abroad 'on a larger scale than Kuwait'. That is the serious lesson learned by military observers from the recent airlift of 7,000 men and 700 tons of stores to airfields on the Persian Gulf and Aden.
A correspondent of the Sunday Pictorial said this:
At one stage the Royal Engineers were laying dummy minefields with old tins.
I will leave it to hon. Members to say whether the operation was a military success.

Mr. Kershaw: By saying that, the hon. Member has invited comment. Dummy minefields are not laid with good mines. They are laid with pieces of tin. This is a matter of fact. On the Kuwait operation, does the hon. Member say that we should have taken a great many troops there but could not do it and that therefore the operation was a failure? Or does he say that 7,000 troops was the wrong number to take there? We took 7,000 troops there and got them there in good time. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman should listen and wait.

Mr. Kershaw: I have listened.

Mr. Wigg: If the hon. Member does not want to wait, he can go outside to the Library and read the newspapers of a fortnight ago, in one of which I stated

reasons. He can then come back and question me on them.

Mr. Kershaw: I am asking the hon. Member now.

Mr. Wigg: I shall answer in my own time. I know that tin cans are laid in dummy minefields. So does the Sunday Pictorial, which says this:
This should fool an Iraqi with a mine detector for a time but only for a short time.
We will now consider what the basis of this planning was. The basis of the planning, which has been taken over by the Air Force, now is that the weapons must be streamlined to fit the aircraft. In effect, that means this. The Ministers who know the facts will correct me if I am wrong. The long-based Land Rover does not fit the aircraft, so it is given a slug on the mudguard with a 14 lb. hammer. It is then got in. That is the technique for making the weapons fit the aircraft.
The hon. Member for Stroud wants to know what I think about the numbers and the equipment which went in, without any anti-aircraft cover. If those who advise the Minister are pressed, they will say that this force would hit so hard and fast that it would not be necessary. The truth is that the Beverleys could not lift it. Therefore, the force did not have it. As the aircraft could not carry it, it is stated that the force did not need it.
The Iraqis have got a fair number of modern aircraft. They have the MiG 19, which is fairly formidable. I have recently been told by people who think they know that the Iraqis suffer from the same physiological disadvantage as the Japanese, in that they cannot fly high-speed aircraft. I do not know whether this is true. I am not a physiologist. British troops have served there for a long time, and some Iraqi pilots may have British blood in their veins. I should not like to risk an operation on this physiological defect, which seems to me to be conveniently adduced, just as it was conveniently adduced about the Japanese, because we had not got the equipment.
We switched two squadrons of Canberra B18s, which themselves are unimpressive, from Germany. They went in there to fight in conditions for which they were not in the least suited.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): What rôle does the hon. Gentleman think the Hunter plays in all this?

Mr. Wigg: I am coming to the Hunter. It is a sturdy aircraft. They have a squadron of Hunters backing up the BI8s, but Hunters are not supersonic.

Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Hunter is an interdicter aircraft?

Mr. Wigg: Yes. In the absence of interdicter aircraft, some marks of the Hunter (have been used for this purpose, but they have no speed. The Hunter is an obsolescent aircraft. If a squadron of MiG 19's got mixed up with a flight of Hunters, we all know what the answer would be. The hon. Gentleman knows that at present the only interdictor which the Armed Forces of the Crown has is the old NA 39 which the Royal Air Force rejected, which the Navy took over, and which the Air Force is now trying to get back again.
Let us go on from the Hunter. I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the B.18. Some years ago we were promised a replacement for the Canberra. We still have not got one. When it comes to a supersonic strike aircraft, there is not one to be found.
The major difference between Suez and Kuwait is that now we have some Britannias and Comets. In other words, we can buy the boys air tickets, and that is what we did. We provided air transport for 7,000 men. We provided an unbalanced force to go into Kuwait and hoped that there would be a link up with the sea transport. I spoke to a senior Royal Air Force officer and asked what would have happened had there not been a link up. I asked whether the troops would be huffed. He said that he would not be huffed, but that the troops would be. It was hit or miss whether there was a link up. It was a spectacular show. We put 7,000 men into Kuwait in a short time, but they did not have the necessary equipment.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Centurion. They had some Centurions. Can the hon. Gentleman say how many supersonic aircraft the Iraqi Air Force had? Can he come

back to my question and say whether Kuwait was a good operation well done, or a bad operation badly done?

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman can make his speech later. I do not know how many supersonic aircraft the Iraqis have. I know that they have the MiG 19, but whether they can fly it is another matter. In the planning of this operation one would have to take into account that if we ever got into difficulties we might find volunteers there. At this juncture of world affairs I would never bank on being sure that if the aircraft were there the pilots would not be there to fly them.
I think that the operation was a washout. The Americans know that it was a wash-out, and so do the Russians, and I think that our prestige in the Middle East has fallen considerably in consequence, because we demonstrated again, as we did at Suez, that we cannot stage an operation of this kind.
The hon. Gentleman said that part of one squadron of the 3rd Caribiniers normally stationed in Aden happened to be there. They were there because the reasons given by the Prime Minister on 3rd July were not true. If the hon. Gentleman gets any satisfaction out of that, he is welcome to it.

Mr. E. Shinwell: One point troubles me. So far as we know, there is no evidence that the Iraqis attempted any resistance. There is also scanty evidence about whether they threatened to commit an act of military aggression. Never mind what force we possessed. If the Iraqis had resisted the landing of our forces, what does my hon. Friend think would have happened?

Mr. Wigg: I do not think that any armoured resistance is possible in that part of the world at this time of the year. This is the hottest time of the year. The temperature is so high that I do not think it would happen. The recent experience of the Americans supports that fact. This took place in Kuwait, the hottest part of the world.

Mr. Kershaw: The Sahara is hot too.

Mr. Wigg: Of course it is hot, but in that part of the world the humidity and temperature has to be experienced to be


believed. I know what I am talking about because I spent three summers there—a year in Basra and two years in Bagdad. I happen to know the area fairly well.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman looks all right.

Mr. Wigg: Of course I am all right. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but that does not mean that some people were not affected. The graveyards of Hanaidi and Shaiba are full of those who did not come through. That is why I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War. I was rebuked by hon. Gentlemen opposite because I asked about the incidence of heat hyper-exia. I asked Professor Yudkin and he told me that in these days nobody ought to suffer the effects of heat because it was known how to deal with it. The War Office had not consulted their own consultants, for the simple reason that "A" and "Q" planning throughout the Armed Forces does not measure up to General Staff thinking. That is why one knocks the mudguards of the Land Rover and tailors the weapon to suit the aircraft. This is another example of the same point.
The hen. Gentleman and I have a fundamentally different approach to the problem. He is concerned with supporting the waning prestige of the Conservative Party. He is fighting a losing battle. I am making no party political points. I want to elicit the truth. If I am wrong, all that he has to do is to do as much homework as I have, and prove me wrong, instead of merely interrupting because he does not accept my conclusions. All I can do is to produce the facts. If I am wrong, the hon. Gentleman can demonstrate that I am wrong. He does not weaken my case or annoy me by his interruptions. He simply lengthens the time for which I will speak. I have waited several months for this opportunity, and I am going to take my fill.
I have a copy of a confidential aviation report which is circulated in aviation circles both inside and outside Great Britain. Under the heading, "R.A.F. self-delusion re. Kuwait", it says:
The R.A.F. are now going round like a dog witch 2 tails saying Kuwait is a complete vindication of their logistics policy. Is it? They took bodies in airliners of course. But how many APCs did they take? How many guns? How much ammo?

It continues:
R.A.F. and Kuwait:
Appros the above, ironically Kuwait is vindication of critics who maintain the R.A.F. has not done its homework.
I think that the hon. Gentleman has something in common with the Royal Air Force.
I want now to turn from Kuwait to another aspect of our military affairs, namely, Germany. I was very interested to read in HANSARD this morning the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper. I congratulate him. He said:
I find it extremely difficult to visualise the circumstances in which a nuclear weapon, even the so-called tactical nuclear weapon, would help very much to maintain the freedom of the Berliners or our rights in Berlin."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1961; Vol. 645. c. 1053.]
That is an admirable statement, with which I wholly agree. But that was not the statement made by my right hon. Friend in 1958, nor was it the one made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). I shall not forget that debate in a hurry. It took place on 27th February, 1958. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West said then was:
if the Russians had raised their stakes up to that point, then, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brawn) said, we, too, must raise our stakes and we should be driven at that point to use tactical nuclear weapons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1958; Vol. 583, c. 655.]
The great difference between 1958 and 1961 is that in 1958 we had no tactical atomic weapons, but in 1961 we have—so in 1958 we should have used them, and in 1961 we should not. This is called military planning.
Again I want to delve into the truth. In 1958 we were told that we had a considerable military force in Berlin, consisting of three battalions, that they would have to stand and fight the Russians irrespective of the strength brought against them and that, in due course, tactical atomic weapons would be brought into use. At present in Berlin we have three battalions, plus one squadron of the Royal Tank Regiment. It is on this point that I find myself against my own party's defence policy. I do not believe that this country now has any viable nuclear capacity. I shall always recall with affection the happenings of March, last year. We then had a debate on defence, in which


I said that Blue Streak was a dead duck. I said that I would not vote. Unfortunately, some other people followed my action, and I was charged with organising resistance, which was not true. I got into great trouble.
We had a meeting, which was duly reported in all the newspapers the next morning, and there was a vote of 43 to 1—and I was the one who did not support our party's policy of believing that Blue Streak was viable. Within six weeks Blue Streak had gone. The independent British deterrent went out of the window almost, except for the V-bomber force, of which we are just forming our first squadron, of Mark II bombers.
I hope that hon. Members will have spent a little time, or will spend a little time, on a study of the reports of the Tushino air show in Moscow. The Russians hardly troubled to put on show any counterpart of our V-bomber. But they put on show one with a powered bomb, which we have not got. They have it, and they have four others as well which show signs of having had similar treatment. They also put on show an old-fashioned all-weather fighter, the Yak 25, together with four generations of all-weather fighter just to show us where the maimed bomber comes in.
In the 1957 Defence White Paper it was stated that there would not be a supersonic bomber nor a further fighter, and because of the action taken since we have no modern fighter today. The Minister does not want to talk about the P1 Lightning because of what we know about the speed of its weapon discharge. It is not yet over its teething troubles. When we dig into these problems we find that at every stage we produce our fighters to operate at speeds just a little slower than the bombers they are supposed to catch. The Americans had a very unfortunate experience recently, when a Sidewinder shot down a B52. This showed that they had to have a heck of a lot more speed, even with an air-to-air weapon, to be able to catch something that was just a little faster.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the latest fighter of the British Air Force, the P1 Lightning, is incapable of fulfilling its rôle effectively?

Mr. Wigg: Oh, yes.

Mr. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that?

Mr. Wigg: Yes, I am saying that without any hesitation at all. I am saying just that—that the P1 at present is like the Hunter in its early stages, it still has "bugs" in it. It has a speed limitation on its weapon discharge. I am saying just that. If the hon. Gentleman cares to deny what I am saying, that is up to him. There are other people who read this besides me and they will be able to judge between us.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage in a debate such as this. He does not expect me to discuss speeds on this occasion, and I certainly have no intention of doing so.

Mr. Wigg: I am discussing only what has been published in various organs of the Press. The American technical papers are full of this sort of information. I read these things. I "mug" them up and then I try to verify the statements. If the hon. Gentleman asks me a question he must not expect me to tell a lie. I give him an answer which I believe to be true—that the P1 at present is anything but an effective weapon.
I wish to say, particularly with relation to the situation in Germany and with regard to the bomb, that on many occasions we have been told by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Opposition that the reason why we have to have the bomb is so that we can count with the Americans. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to, I can quote from two occasions. One was when the Prime Minister said:
The fact that we were in a position to use it had great influence on the United States policy and made them pay greater regard to our point of view.
The Leader of the Opposition was interviewed on television on 3rd March, 1958, when he was asked by Mr. Mackenzie:
Do you think that Britain should hold the nuclear weapon in order to influence American policy?
The right hon. Gentleman said:
Yes, we certainly do feel that.
I wish now to put what I consider a rather important point. President Kennedy has just made a very important speech in the United States and he


has stepped up the draft. In the early months of this year the inductees were running, at the order of 6,000. In August the figure was stepped up to 13,000. I wish to ask those of my hon. Friends, and other hon. Members, who have made up their minds that it is important to influence American policy regarding the British contribution in the field of defence, how long they think that American opinion is going to wear the fact that we have an Army of 165,000, and no call-up while 13,000 of their young men will be called up every month? Hon. Members on either side of the House who use the argument that the possession of the bomb is absolutely essential—quite apart from military reasons—in order to influence American policy must face that fact squarely.
I got this information from the United States Army Attaché's office at the American Embassy, and I also made use of the admirable research facilities in our own Library in order to verify my facts because I wanted to be absolutely sure on the point. I have also managed to get hold of a copy—or at least a photostat—of the evidence given in June by General Norstad before the Congress Committee on Defence. These are extracts from what he said:
The danger of war will, therefore, be regulated in part by the value our posture compels the U.S.S.R. to place upon our ability to do whatever is needed. That ability, if it is to remain persuasive, must rest on adequate and balanced forces in being—air, land and sea—all highly trained and equipped, all properly deployed for a forward strategy and all unmistakably ready.
Later he said:
It is our view
he was talking about the defence of the West—
that if you drop them below the threshold of usefulness—a threshold of effectiveness, you are then left really with no choice, in case your policies are challenged or in case of attack, no choice of response between nothing and all-out thermo-nuclear war.
He also said when asked if more could be done:
I think more can be done. I frankly feel that much more can be done.
We live in dangerous times. If hon. Members think that in the terms of the situation in which we find ourselves the Forces that we have in the Rhine Army are balanced, effective and properly deployed, let me say, before I am asked

from the Treasury Front Bench, that I do not.
I have given the rundown in numbers, but the most vital thing of all is the misinformation on this subject. During discussion on the Visiting Forces Bill, one of my hon. Friends said, "You will be giving the hydrogen bomb to the Germans next"—as if the capacity to give the hydrogen bomb rested with us. These decisions have already been taken. I find it ironical—I will not say amusing because this subject cannot be amusing—that we had a hell of a row in our party when discussing the Visiting Forces Bill and the Germans coming to this country. The explanation is very simple. We tried to flog them the Centurion and the Germans were not having it, and we tried to flog them the Chieftain and they were not having it. Then we sold them the 105 mm. tank gun, which I think is the best in the world, but they are putting it in an American tank. It is part of the package deal that if they take the tank they take our gun and they want the opportunity to fire on our ranges. What is the protest about?
What is even more amusing is that at the same time there appeared in The Times of 27th June this statement:
Western Germany is to buy a number of Pershing medium-range missiles from the Martin Aircraft Company, it was reported in Baltimore today. The earlier order for Mace missiles was cancelled last April at the request, it is understood, of N.A.T.O. The initial order is for $120 million.
This statement did not arouse one single word of protest from my hon. Friends.
At the present time the Germans have, or have under order, the Mace, the Matador, Honest John, and Sergeant, and now they have ordered Pershing. We have got one regiment of Honest Johns, but it has the out-of-date M.31, and it is one stage off being old iron.
We have two guided weapon regiments, numbers 27 and 47, which have Corporals, both hopelessly out-of-date, and we have one mixed artillery regiment which is armed with atomic and conventional weapons. The Canberra is out of date; we have no supersonic fighter and no transport aircraft. We have spent £15,000 million and we say that we are arguing from a policy of strength and that we hope to make our words heard in the comity of nations.
It is an absurd argument which comes from one section of opinion which thinks that the power to control German rearmament or the arms that the Germans will have rests with this country. The other argument I read with great interest in speeches made at the Transport and General Worker's Union Conference. How often have the words of our dear friend Nye Bevan been used? We cannot go into the council chamber naked—as if possession or non-possession of a V-bomber force makes all this difference.
The first thing that we have to realise in a defence policy is the long-term business. If we take the decisions brought out in the 1957 White Paper and reverse the policy of going in for the supersonic bomber, look how long it takes. That is what is wrong with the Government. It is no reflection on British industry. That is what is wrong with the hon. Member for Stroud. The brains are in Britain and the research capacity and the engineering capacity are in Britain. What has been wrong was the incapacity to take right decisions at the right time. The TSR2 is a wonderful aircraft, miles in advance of anything the Americans had even dreamed of. What happened? We dillied and dallied. Now the Americans have got the A3J and the F4M, both of which are operational, and another generation is coming along. We are not even in the running. What is true of them is equally true of transport aircraft. Ages ago we could have got a transport aircraft if we had wanted to do so, but we preferred to pretend. It all comes back to the fact that we have been playing politics with this subject.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Stroud has now left the Chamber because I know that at this point he would sigh and grumble and say that he had heard it all before. That is absolutely true; there is nothing new to say about it. We have fought certainly on this side of the House, for the best of reasons. We thought that we could get rid of conscription, which was politically difficult to handle, and that we could fill the gap with atomic weapons. Hon. Members should read the debates. It is a very interesting and educative experience to read through the defence debates of the last ten years.
It comes out over and over again that all men are torn in their conscience and hate war and all it stands for, but the idea is that conscription and spending money on defence is essentially wasted, but, of course, it is not. If we do not spend it in the kind of society in which we live we may find that we have lost more than if we did spend it. We shall go to our party conferences and each side will make speeches. Then everyone will cheer, but when the votes have been counted and all the cheers have died away the defence realities will be there just the same. I do not know why Mr. Khrushchev has chosen to blow this up now. The one thing I am certain about is that this time next year we shall be weaker than we are now. I am absolutely certain that the Communist countries, with their different philosophy from our own, have a marked advantage in preparing for war. It means that their overall strength has grown and will continue to grow.
What came out in General Norstad's evidence was not that we are weaker. We have more in population and our standard of education greater. Our capacity to produce steel and our technological experience are greater. Standards of education over the mass of the population are far greater in the West than they are behind the Iron Curtain.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Technically?

Mr. Wigg: In technical education, yes. I am sure that the one thing missing in the West is the will. I am also sure that time is running out. I beg hon. Members who are interested in the facts to spend some time in the Library here and in the Library of the American Embassy, to study the Russian air displays which took place recently in Moscow and to see the force of the challenge which confronts us. I think it is a challenge which will last far beyond my lifetime and far beyond this century. Here are two conceptions. Pray God that they will not fight, because that would mean disaster for us all. But the struggle is there. In this country we have a philosophy which stems, basically, from our failure to tell the truth.
I began by saying that I was a democrat. My conception of democracy does not depend upon majorities. It depends upon the ordinary man understanding the facts of the problem with which he must deal. He is not told the truth. He has not been told the truth about Kuwait. In my judgment, about that we have had a "public relations" explanation. He has not been told the truth about Berlin. On the television last night I saw the "Panorama" programme. It was a complete distortion put over by honourable men who, I am sure, believed that they were doing the right thing.
My approach in thinking about the problem is to start by remembering that 40 million Russians in two world wars lost their lives as a result of German actions. The Russians will never permit that to happen again. All talk about German unification, the strengthening of the weapons I have referred to—the Corporal, the Matador or the Pershing—is just not on. Anyone who thinks that it is or who tries it will have a rude awakening. Let us recognise that fact and understand that we ought to find a modus vivendi. One hon. Gentleman who spoke from the back benches opposite last night told the truth. We ought to remember the simple fact that the line between East and West is now a bird sanctuary because nobody dares fire a shot.
We must move towards disarmament. I believe that disarmament is a technical problem. It is too serious for the politicians to handle. If we could have a political decision by Mr. Khrushchev and by Mr. Kennedy for the West to recognise East Germany, if the United States and the West could recognise China, if we had a nuclear-free zone in Europe and if we could then work out techniques for cutting down budgets or, at least, get as great an agreement as we could over as wide a field as possible, that would be the essential first step.
In the meantime, we must face the military realities not as we should wish them to be to suit our political views but as they are. It is very nice to think that one can get rid of conscription by having tactical nuclear weapons to do the job. That is the kind of sloppy approach one finds on all sides in this country. People believe that the hydrogen bomb has brought in a new era. It may have done. On the

other hand, it may not. Peace is something for which we must strive. In my judgment, peace can be attained only through the maintenance of law and order, and for that to happen, despite the mission of the Royal Air Force, the main responsibility must continue to rest with the Army. It is for that reason that I do not apologise for keeping the House so long tonight.

8.54 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in his closing remarks, referred to the German problem and Berlin. During our very useful and interesting debate yesterday, which, I think, sent out a fairly clear message from the House, there were several references to the speech made last week by the President of the United States. Two thing said by President Kennedy in that speech have a very close bearing on our debate tonight. Speaking of the Berlin problem he said:
That isolated outpost is not an isolated problem. The threat is world-wide.
It is very important to have that clear. What we are dealing with is not a threat to one place or even to two places at one time; it is a world-wide threat. Just as we need a nuclear deterrent to meet the main nuclear threat from the Russians, so we need a conventional deterrent which is a deterrent in twenty places at once.
That brings me to the other significant thing which President Kennedy said. He stated:
We intend to have a wider choice than humiliation or all-out nuclear action.
Those two remarks in the President's speech show, first, an appreciation of the facts of the situation which other Governments might do well to emulate, and, secondly, how far the Government of the United States have moved, for instance, since the former Vice-President Nixon said:
Rather than let the Communists nibble us to death all over the world in little wars, we will rely on massive mobile retaliatory power.
I wish that I thought that Her Majesty's Government had moved as far in recent months and years as the Government of the United States.
It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government are still thinking in terms of streamlined nuclear forces, like they


were in 1957. As the hon. Member for Dudley said in his closing remarks, they are still thinking that all we need to do is to have nuclear weapons and that they will do the job for us. They think, as Mr. Nixon used to think—I do not imagine that he thinks it now—that, to fight the cold war and to stop the Communists nibbling away in a hundred different places at once, as they are doing, all that we need is massive nuclear retaliation.
The other thing which the Government do not seem to have grasped is the fact that what we are fighting at the moment is a cold war and that we are not, in the words of the 1958 White Paper, poised between total war and total peace. That is not only a very erroneous but an extremely dangerous doctrine. What it means, in effect, is that, if we do not look out, we shall find ourselves poised between total nuclear war and total humiliation and the inability to do anything else.
August and September is the time of year when trouble is about to start. I do not think that this August will disappoint us. It certainly has not disappointed us so far. We have Kuwait on our hands. We have the Berlin crisis, as it is called. It would not surprise me to see fresh crises arise before the end of September in Singapore, Persia and possibly Africa. As I have said before, the Russians do not want a hot war, but they do want a cold war. They are making trouble for us wherever they can and stirring up trouble wherever possible.
How are we equipped to deal with this situation? The hon. Member for Dudley had a great deal to say about Kuwait. I do not wish to follow him in what he said, or to go into the thorny question of whether the operation was a success. It is certain that the 7,000 troops involved reached Kuwait quite quickly, quite a lot of them by air, which would not have bean possible some time ago. However, it was an unopposed landing in friendly territory, and that makes a great difference.
The hon. Member referred to the Suez operation, which, I should say, was a success, from a military point of view, under the political limitations which were imposed on it. From a mili-

tary point of view and from the point of view of the Services, with the material they had, they did all right. What the Kuwait operation showed was that even an unopposed landing on friendly territory imposed a tremendous strain both on our resources of manpower and our material resources. It made far too heavy a demand on our reserves of both, and it seems fairly clear that if another emergency of the same kind had arisen at the same time, or, indeed, if the Kuwait operation had turned out not to be unopposed after all, things might have gone very wrong indeed.
In fact, another emergency has arisen, and I think that we might find other emergencies arising before the end of the summer. The emergency which has arisen over Berlin also shows us a picture which is very far from reassuring. Now that the spotlight is being turned on B.A.O.R., we find what some of us knew already if we have taken the trouble to think, namely, that our N.A.T.O. contribution is far under strength. We are not fulfilling our obligations under the Treaty.
We are not providing anything like four divisions. We are barely providing three divisions, and, what is more, the formations that are there, if we can believe the defence correspondent of The Times, and he is generally very well informed, are so under strength as not to be viable, and that making them up to strength and making them viable can only be done by so depleting the Strategic Reserve that that would not be viable either.
Of course, there is also the question of their equipment, and the question whether or not they are balanced forces and whether the units are balanced. All my information is that they are not balanced, that individual units are under strength and short of all kinds of important equipment. Again, according to the defence correspondent of The Times, it seems fairly clear that the war they are preparing to fight is not a conventional war, but a nuclear war. What will happen, with the strain imposed on us by Kuwait, and if we are to—which I do not know—make B.A.O.R. up to strength, if trouble started somewhere else? Where should we find the troops to deal with it?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Or the money?

Sir F. Maclean: Or the money.
At present, our allies, and indeed our adversaries, but I will deal only at the moment with our allies, are building up their forces and, in particular, their conventional forces. We have heard earlier of the stops that the United States Government are taking to increase the available manpower, and their object in doing that is to raise the nuclear threshold, to raise the threshold at which it is necessary to use the nuclear weapon. That, surely, is something which we should aim at doing, too; as President Kennedy put it, to provide ourselves with a wider Choice than humiliation, on the one hand, or all-out nuclear action, on the other.
We have to provide not only a nuclear deterrent, but a conventional deterrent, in twenty different places at once. That is what we are not capable of doing. Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government, in spite of the warnings they have had, in spite of the entreaties of their allies—it is fairly clear what Mr. McNamara came over here to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence—and in spite of the practical example of the strain placed on their existing resources by even an operation like Kuwait, are deliberately not building up, but running down, their conventional forces as fast as they possibly can.
By their own admission, the decision which the Government took in 1957 to abolish conscription was a gamble. That was fairly clear from what was said in the 1957 White Paper. I may be old-fashioned, but I do not think that the security of this country is something with which we should gamble; but that is a matter of opinion. What is quite certain is that the Government's gamble has not come off, and the sooner they face that ugly fact the better. The sooner they realise that we are not picturesquely poised between total peace and total war, but that we are very much involved with our allies in the rough-and-tumble of the cold war, the better.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has said that the Army must manage with 165,000 men. The hon. Member for Dudley, who has studied these matters, has said that we will not get 165,000 men. He may well be right

and we may end up with no more than 160,000 or 162,000 men.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member need not rely only on what I say. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when Secretary of State for War, over a year ago, and the present Secretary of State for War, have both said that we shall not get 165,000 men, the present Secretary of State saying that the deficiency would be about 1 per cent.

Sir F. Maclean: I have never seriously questioned within 2,000 or 3,000 one way or the other the figure of 165,000, because I was at the War Office when the Government actuaries calculated that that was the figure that we were likely to get with a little luck—which, possibly, the Government will not have—by voluntary recruiting. What I have never accepted is that that is the figure we need.
Naturally, I am out of date and I do not know what the figure is that we need. In those days, it was considered to be about 200,000 men. I very much suspect that if that figure of 200,000 men for the Army is out of date, it is out of date not because it is too big, but because it is too small, and that now, with the troubles and the problems which we face, we need more men than that.
What it comes to is that, as far as anything in life is certain, when the last conscript goes out of the Army at the end of next year—and that is not very far away—the Government will find themselves left without enough men to fulfil their commitments and to play their proper part in the Western Alliance.
That is leaving out of account any mishaps such as the possible failure of the Nepalese Government to go on providing us with the immensely valuable contribution which they make to our forces in the shape of the Gurkha brigades. I know nothing about the political situation in Nepal, but Nepal is in a very exposed position indeed. What, I wonder, would happen if so much pressure of one kind or another were brought to bear on the Nepalese Government that they came to the conclusion that it would not be compatible with their neutrality to go on providing us with the 12,000 of the best troops that we have got?
That would leave a very awkward hole in our defences indeed, and that is the


sort of thing that is not out of the question. I sincerely hope that it will not happen. I personally have no reason to suppose that it will happen. All I say is that if it did happen it would be a disaster. Even assuming we are able to go on having the advantage of having those splendid soldiers in our Army, the Government, in my opinion, will not manage with 165,000, even if they get them. What are they to do?
I have seen it suggested—it has been hinted at by Ministers—that use might be made of the Territorial Army. If that is so, and if it is practicable, it would certainly be a splendid thing. It would enable the Territorial Army to return to the rôle which it fulfilled up to quite recently and which it fulfilled in the last war, and it would make other measures, possibly, unnecessary, but I do not myself see how it can be done. I do not know whether it is possible for the Government, for instance, to call up a Territorial brigade or a Territorial division and keep it called up for an indefinite period, because an indefinite period is what it has got to be called up for, because one of the features of the cold war is that we never know how long it is going on for, we never know when an emergency will arise.
Therefore, the Territorials will either have to be called up for an indefinite period, which might be a very long one indeed, and which would mean that the men involved would be taken away from their homes and from their work for that indefinite period, or, alternatively, we shall have to call up a brigade or a division at a time and then replace it by another brigade or another division.
I shall be interested to hear, when my hon. Friend replies to the debate, whether he has got any suggestion to make on that, because if use cannot be made for all these purposes of the Territorial Army, or of the reserves, then it seems to me that, much as it goes against the grain—and nobody likes it—the only way of getting the men we need is by conscription.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us from what particular industry he can take men at present?

Sir F. Maclean: All that I am doing at the moment is to say that if the men

we need cannot be got in any other way the only way I can think of getting them is by conscription.
There are various objections raised to conscription which I should like to deal with one by one. First, there is the objection that it does not work. Well, it has not worked all that badly in this country, it works fairly well in the United States and it works fairly well in every one of the other N.A.T.O. countries, except Canada. They all have it. The Soviet Union also has it, and I suggest to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that he might talk to the Russians about why they have conscription.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is not answering my question.

Sir F. Maclean: I answered the hon. Gentleman in almost the same speech when we had a previous debate. If he will look it up he will see what my answer was then.
The other objection, and one which might also appeal to the hon. Member, is that it would be impossible politically. I think that it would have been very much easier if we had done what Lord Head pressed for so strongly at the time, and what Lord Montgomery is now supporting, namely, not taken the necessary Acts off the Statute Book. They could have been kept there for use in emergency and that would have made the political problem, such as it is, very much simpler. I have always thought, with the hon. Member for Dudley, that this ought to be a bipartisan mattes and that it is very important not to allow it to become a party political matter.
In my view, both the Government and the Opposition Front Bench have been pursuing a wrong defence policy. If they could follow a bipartisan policy in order to be wrong, surely they might equally have got a bipartisan policy and been right. If this issue had been put quite frankly and openly to the British people they would have understood the need for conscription and they would have faced it, as they have faced many other disagreeable things in the past.
Finally, there is the economic objection to which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has just referred. This is one which must carry a good deal of weight


at present. My own feeling is that whatever else we economise on art this time, in the affluent society in which we are sometimes told we are living, we should not economise on conventional forces. If we are to economise on defence I would prefer to see us economise on the independent British nuclear deterrent, if it still exists.
I read somewhere in a book by the Institute for Strategic Studies that the Americans now provide 94 per cent. of the Western deterrent. If we were to chip off 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of our contribution to it then, as long as we went on making a token contribution, it would not make all that difference. What makes the difference, as the hon. Member for Dudley has pointed out, is that we do not follow them in building up our conventional forces.
I repeat that in 1957 the Government took a gamble when they abolished conscription, a gamble which now, quite clearly, has not came off. I hope that they will face that fact without any more delay and draw the necessary conclusions from it before it is too late. And the way things are going, it will be too late very soon.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I do not want to say much about Kuwait. There are certain curious features of the operation on which no doubt more light will be thrown in due course. One of the most curious instances from my point of view was that four days after our troops landed I received a most courteous cable from the Iraqi Government inviting me to visit Iraq. I dare say that if I had gone I would have learned a good deal about the operation.
I hope that whoever replies to this debate on behalf of the Government will tell us something about two points. The first is the widespread suspicion that our troops have no adequate defence against attacks from the air if such attacks take place. Secondly, I should like to hear something about the armour. There seems to be one small but curious point here. The scout car which strayed across the frontier was apparently unarmed. We were told that the crew had side arms, but I understand that the vehicle itself had no arms. It may be that it is a type of vehicle which carries no arms.

Otherwise, it seems rather strange that in a situation like that it should have been motoring about the frontier unarmed.
I also hope that the Government, although I do not expect any reply to this today, will, in the recesses of the Government machine, reconsider our commitments all up and down the Gulf. They were undertaken in totally different circumstances, to suppress piracy and to guard the route to India. Now our troops are kept there for quite different reasons, and, as far as I can see, they are there upon doubtful terms; but I will not pursue that any more.
The main theme of this short debate is that a few years ago the fashionable doctrine was that we relied upon massive nuclear deterrence. That had certain arguments for it. It no doubt made people think twice before they started any form of warlike behaviour. However, personally I never believed in it. Whether it is believable or not, there is no question now that it is not the basis of Western defence policy any longer. As has been said, the West are not prepared now, if they can possibly avoid it, to find themselves in a position in which they have to make a choice between total war or total surrender.
I have long been opposed to the independent British nuclear deterrent. All I want to say about that tonight is that every piece of information I get shows that it becomes less and less useful. I do not say that the V-bomber force is inefficient at all. All I say is that within the scheme of Western deterrence everything we read about the advances in ground-to-air missiles, about fighters and about what the Americans and the Russians are doing, must surely make us more and more doubtful about spending so much of our limited resources upon trying to keep up our independent strategic nuclear deterrent.
Surely the reason is quite simple. We have not the money or the men to compete with the Russians in developing weapons, so that if some are failures others will be coming up which may be effective. Our contribution, surely, must be to make sure that we are able to fulfil the obligations that we have undertaken under our alliances and that we are able to fulfil our commitments dotted about the world.
In particular, we are faced with the possibility of trouble in Germany and Berlin. What I feel the House ought to be assured of before we rise is that we are not becoming in Germany more and more dependent upon tactical nuclear and atomic weapons. I should like some assurance that our conventional forces, which we know are below strength, are not falling even further below strength in Germany. I should like some assurance that we are not trying to make this good by lowering the standards. I should also like the Government to deal with what we hope will not happen but is by no means an impossibility, that we might—here I am in agreement with what has been said already—have to send troops to the Far East and that we might find them involved all too easily in the Middle East, and not only on the Gulf but in Persia. We might have cause to send troops to Africa. At the same time, there might be trouble in Germany.
I know that Berlin itself is not defensible, whether by nuclear or by conventional weapons. The sort of situation we might have to face is one in which there is trouble in East Germany, possibly on the frontier, and I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) that, in these circumstances, we do not want to be driven back instantly on nuclear threats. That is a danger which faces us.

Mr. Wigg: The burden of the evidence given by General Norstad a few days ago to a Congressional committee is that the absence of conventional forces itself destroys the credibility of the nuclear deterrent, because the Russians will not believe that, in a limited sphere, the West will precipitate a nuclear war. If we have conventional forces, then the credibility of the nuclear deterrent is all the greater.

Mr. Grimond: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, as I am so often. I agree with him. The credibility of the deterrent runs right through from the rifle to the strategic nuclear weapon. I would add that the Russians will not believe in the will of the West to resist unless they see that we are prepared to make an effort to supply the conventional forces as well as the nuclear forces.
We cannot expect the Government to tell us in detail what the position in Germany may be, but they will be undertaking a very heavy responsibility if they face this summer with no sufficient assurance that they will even be able to meet the very limited target they have set themselves, and with no assurance that they can make up our units in Germany to anything like their full strength. Whether this can be done by the Territorial Army or by conscription is a matter I do not want to go into now.
We should have from the Government a statement that we are in a position to fulfil our commitments to N.A.T.O. and our other commitments throughout the world without having at once to begin brandishing nuclear weapons of whatever size, because public opinion in this country would not, I think, support that—and, as has been said by the hon. Member for Dudley, so far from frightening our opponents it might frighten our allies and would probably encourage our enemies.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There was an air of great unreality during our debates early this year when we discussed the enormous sums of money which we were voting on the various Estimates, but there seems an even greater air of unreality about this debate. Yesterday, the House was crowded for a statement by the Prime Minister about the economic situation which was driving us into the Common Market. Tomorrow and Thursday the House will be crowded when we discuss the economic difficulties and financial crisis facing the country. In the middle, we are having a debate on the problems of defence, which implies consideration of defence expenditure.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) seems to be almost oblivious of the fact that we are in a financial crisis. He began by talking about a nuclear deterrent and then went on to talk about the conventional deterrent. He seemed to be almost oblivious of the fact that these demands will cost a vast sum of money.

Sir F. Maclean: They are costing that already.

Mr. Hughes: They will cost more. One reason for the present financial


crisis, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that we have been spending too much money and must cut down on our overseas expenditure. We are now in the middle of a financial crisis, a large part of which is due to the fact that early this year the House agreed to this vast expenditure of over £1,660 million, which the country is now told has helped to land it in this financial crisis.
If we add to that the burden of a conscript Army, which would have to be equipped with very expensive modern weapons, we should add expenditure to expenditure. The economic crisis would continue and the country would be faced with an insoluble problem. We are already warned that the consequence of the Chancellor's financial action will be a difficult economic situation, in which there will be strikes. This will mean industrial unrest and will add to the possibility of a stronger Communist movement in Britain.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire is in his usual dilemma. I do not think that the dilemma can be solved by putting his suggestions into practice. If there were a conscript Army, from what strata of industry would it be raised? Would it be from agriculture, mining, engineering, or from trades concerned in exporting?

Mr. Wigg: It is not for me to defend the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, but his point was perfectly fair on this occasion and when he made it in a previous debate. If my hon. Friend objects to some form of national service for this country, what has he to say about the three years' service done by the Russians and by every country behind the Iron Curtain? The Germans do it, and the period will probably be increased in Germany. The French do it. How does he think that we can go on enjoying all the benefits of an ordered life while making no contribution?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is dragging me away from my main line of argument.

Sir F. Maclean: May I bring the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) back to his main line of argument? He asked me from what industry I would take conscripts. It is

for the two Front Benches to work out the details of these schemes.
I will make one suggestion. I would do what is done in the United States. There, they exempt any industry or class of technician or hardship cases that they think they can. In this country, which does not need so many conscripts, it would be much easier to exempt, for example, agricultural workers, miners, and so on. That would no doubt also have the effect of encouraging recruiting for agriculture and the mines.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire has tried to provoke the two Front Benches to answer the question.

Sir F. Maclean: The Government have said that they would do it by ballot, which does not particularly appeal to me.

Mr. Hughes: It is the old solution that it must now be done by ballot.

Sir F. Maclean: That is not my solution.

Mr. Hughes: We are told that we want a highly skilled Army, trained in the very elaborate mechanism of modern tanks and possibly some kind of tactical nuclear weapons. Where would the hon. Member get the men from? The hon. Gentleman says it would be done by ballot.

Sir F. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman does not listen. I am not likely to be faced with the problem, but what I said I would do would be to exempt the industries or the types of workers who were most needed for the national economy. I would get my recruits from the other members of the community.

Mr. Hughes: What has become of the ballot?

Sir F. Maclean: I was only trying to help the hon. Gentleman and make it easier for him. I was trying to say not only what I would do, but what the Government would do. We know what the Government would do. One has only to look at the 1957 White Paper, in which it is said that the ballot is the only way in which conscription can be reintroduced. That is the Government's attitude. I have expressed my private view.

Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman has tried to help me, I will try to help him.

Sir F. Maclean: I am always glad to help my constituents.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the House will allow me to venture to make a suggestion, we have many speeches to hear between now and lunch time tomorrow, and we might make better progress if we have them one at a time.

Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I always give way to any hon. Member who seeks my help.
The hon. Gentleman proposes to exempt agricultural workers and miners. He falls back on the workers employed in the engineering industry.

Sir F. Maclean: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: Now he does not propose to take the engineers into his new Army. He does not propose to allow the agricultural workers or the miners to go into the ballot. He will, therefore, be left with hairdressers and tobacconists. When the hon. Gentleman's argument for conscription is reduced to its inevitable analysis, the result does not help one to understand either the military or the economic situation.
The House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for raising the question of Kuwait. It is interesting to know that this is the first opportunity which my hon. Friend has had of raising what I called at the time one of the most remarkable military adventures in recent history. We were told that it was urgent to rush this Army out. It was rushed out to Kuwait, but it did not find an enemy.
A constituent of mine, Brigadier Fergusson, wrote an interesting letter to The Times. He said that this was an unopposed operation. It was an unopposed operation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley asked certain questions which demand answers. We are now told that the operation was a triumph for the organisation of the War Office. The War Office is to show similar powers of organisation by bringing these men back again. As I said before, it is the most wonderful military excursion since the days of the Grand Old Duke of York.
The noble Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men,
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.
Now we are told that, once having landed soldiers in Kuwnit we axe to bring them back, presumably because the menace which we sent them to fight no longer exists—or does it? General Kassem is still there. The presumed threat to Kuwait is still there. We still have many British soldiers there, living in a temperature of 120 degrees in the shade.
The hon. Member for Dudley asked about the tanks of the Army of Iraq. He said that the troops could not operate in tanks because it was too hot. At the same time, however, he told us that Centurion tanks have been sent there for our troops. Presumably, British soldiers are to operate in Centurion tanks in weather which is too hot for them. All I can say is that when the Ruler of Kuwait ended his message by saying "May God preserve you" it would have been literally true if there had been any Army there to face us in the desert.
This was a remarkable military adventure, and the Government have still to tell us a little more about it. They still have to answer the searching questions of the hon. Member for Dudley and a few more. I want to ask a question which is always regarded as an indecent one in this House. What is this costing? I was told yesterday that our soldiers were operating there under the customary lavish hospitality of the Arab Ruler. What does that mean? Who is paying the Arab Ruler? Presumably he is getting his money from us. Nobody yet knows whether this operation is a military operation, or is meant to humour the Ruler, and make him keep his £400 million in the City of London.
At the time the Government embarked upon this operation they must have been aware of the problems to which the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire has drawn our attention. The must have known about Berlin, and about the possibility of trouble in other parts of the Middle East and also in Africa. When the hon. Member left the war Office he did not take its problems with him. They are still at the War Office. We want to know how the Government can possibly handle the situation. How


cam they continue to spend these enormous sums of money in foreign lands and, at the same time, keep our economic and financial crisis under control? How can they possibly operate in all the different spheres which we were told earlier this year were absolutely necessary for them to operate in for the defence of this country? I stress now what I stressed them. If the machinery of this House was better adapted to make searching investigations of military expenditure in the early part of the year we should not have a financial crisis aft the end of it.
I now turn to the question of Berlin. Here again, we are told that we are faced with a formidable problem. I have little in common, ideologically, with Lord Montgomery, but in a recent article in the Sunday Times he drew our attention to the inescapable realities. Lord Montgomery argued that we could not possibly defend Berlin or Western Germany unless we were prepared to use nuclear weapons. Everybody knows that the use of nuclear weapons would mean suicide.
I have been to Berlin on many occasions since the war, and I have been in Western Berlin with the people who run the Fellowship of Reconciliation and other Quaker people in that part of the city. I have seen the developments. I remember Berlin just after the war, when the streets were masses of rubble and young women were wheeling bricks about in wheelbarrows and putting them into dumps for use in rebuilding the city. I was in Berlin during the time of the airlift and during the June rising.
Some times hon. Members accuse me of being too sympathetic to the Soviet Union. I remember being in Berlin during the rising and I tried to get into East Berlin. I passed the West German police and was then confronted with the Russian tanks, which were the final argument. I remember writing an article in the New Statesman in which I said that Russian tanks in Berlin were enough to make Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Leibnecht turn in their graves and I was denounced on Moscow Radio. But in Berlin to final reality is the Russian tanks. They are the final reality in the whole of Germany; the fact that the Germans are faced with the tremendous power of Russian

military force which, in the ultimate resort, can be defeated only by a similar organisaton of the West, plus nuclear weapons.
I submit, therefore, that we are in an inescapable dilemma. We have to face the possibility of war, or nuclear war, or we must have an entirely new foreign policy. I want to see the Russians out of East Germany as much as anyone. I want to see them out of Hungary and Rumania and all the countries. I do not believe that an occupying army in any country is likely to help to persuade the population to believe in Communism, Socialism, or anything else, because the political thought is directed to getting rid of the occupying arm. I believe that Lord Montgomery was right and that we must have a five-year plan for the evacuation of the armed forces from East and from West Germany and from the Continent of Europe. The argument is powerful and I have seen no reasonable answer to it. If we are to avoid nuclear suicide we must be prepared to have a phased withdrawal of troops from all military bases in all occupied countries, and for that to take place by 1965.
I suggest that this is the right line of approach, from which there would be hope for Berlin and for East and West Germany, for the rest of Europe and for humanity generally. I certainly hope that Berlin will cease to be a city over which the shadows of destruction still loom. I hope that the time will come when we shall see Berlin the capital of a neutral, disarmed Germany, which would mean that our problem was beginning to be solved in a realistic manner.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire referred to the speech made by President Kennedy. It was an important and interesting speech and I read it very carefully. What interested me was the last two paragraphs. After talking about the need for spending a greater sum of money on the armed forces of America, President Kennedy proceeded to deal with the question of civil defence. He spoke of a very big programme with the enormous expenditure of 230 million dollars upon air raid shelters for America.
If we want to see that argument carried a little further, and what it implies, we have only to read the article by Mr. Alistair Cooke in today's issue of


the Guardian, in which he points out that the plumbing vested interests and the cement vested interests are greatly interested in the policy of making increased profits out of the plumbing and cement which is proposed for air raid shelters. If air raid shelters are so very important for the preservation of the United States of America, are we not entitled to ask: what about the air raid shelter programme for this country?
The Leader of the House of Commons has not a programme—he has not the time. What President Kennedy thinks is so important for the. United States is regarded as something that the Leader of the House of Commons cannot give us half-an-hour to discuss. Surely, we are geographically a little nearer the rockets than the United States of America. I am as much interested in the preservation of our cities and in the preservation of Cambridge in this country as I am in the preservation of Cambridge in Massachusetts, and I am as interested in the survival of the historic civilisation of Britain as I am in the society of the United States of America.
We should be telling President Kennedy that if this kind of strategy, this kind of policy and this kind of war that he envisages means that a very large percentage of the American population is to go underground that is not the sort of policy that should commend itself to our people if we have not the air raid shelters and no defences of this kind at all.
So we have to be prepared to rethink our whole policy in regard to our commitments with the U.S.A. As long as we are content just to accept the ideas of Mr. McNamara and his band, the people who are in charge of American defence policy, and to follow that line of policy, the two things that we are faced with are the possibilities of getting involved in a nuclear war, or, if we escape that, of being involved in an economic crisis which is absolutely insoluble.
At present, we are thinking of realigning our whole foreign policy in order to go into Europe. There is to be an important conversation between President de Gaulle and the Prime Minister, and we are told that the Prime Minister will tell President de Gaulle

that unless we can come to some agreement about the economic conditions of the Common Market we shall withdraw our military support from Europe.
What is that but unilateral action? It is a curious state of affairs that the Prime Minister should try to solve his military and economic difficulties by going to President de Gaulle and saying, "We are going to take unilateral action which will weaken N.A.T.O." It is quite natural that people of this country should ask questions which are not being answered and which I am trying to put to the Government tonight.
We are in the middle of an economic crisis which we shall not get out of in the conventional way. As we find the new measures of the Government cutting into the standards of working life, the Government will be met by revolt in every industry in the country. In leaving the House for the long Recess I am not at all happy at the thought of having such a long holiday while realising that the Government do not seem to have any capacity, plans and ideas, but are running away and going from one subterfuge to another. They have come to the end of the road in which a crisis is inescapable.
I disagree with one point made by the hon. Member for Dudley. He said that we are better educated than the Russians. When I asked if he thought we were better technically educated than the Russians, either for peace or war, he said that we were better technically educated. I ask him to think about that again. I know that he is open to statistical argument. I ask him to read the speech of the Minister for Science. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, who knows a little about the Soviet Union, will agree with him. One of the inescapable things in our dealings with the Soviet Union is that there is a new technical generation there, thinking in terms of all the technicalities of a nuclear age. I do not see the slightest possibility—

Mr. Wigg: I am not now talking of what is to happen in the future. My hon. Friend asked me whether I thought the technical efficiency of this country was equal to that of the Soviet Union and my answer is, "Yes" We introduced penicillin and Blue Streak. There was


the work on T.S.R. 2. Work and technical efficiency here has been hampered because the House will not face realities. The efficiency of the British people, if given the chance, is still equal to that of the Russians.

Mr. Hughes: I am not saying that the British people are fundamentally weaker than the people of the Soviet Union, but although my hon. Friend talks about penicillin and the Blue Streak, I would remind him that a Russian has been the first to go into outer space.

Mr. Wigg: I am not in the slightest detracting from the technical efficiency of the Russian people, or from the bravery of the gallant man who went into outer space. What I am saying is that this is a question of resources and priority. If sufficient resources and the right priority had been given, British industry would have done the same. The fault does not lie there, but with hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend has put his point of view and there is much in it. I urge on the House, as I have urged before, that we should realise that a new civilisation has come with the development of Communism in the U.S.S.R. Whether one likes Communism or not, we cannot ignore it. It is expressing itself technically in a way that no one can seriously argue that if the arms race goes on for a decade or twenty years we shall win it. So I say that hon. Members on both sides of the House would do well to watch carefully what is happening in the Soviet Union and in China.
The Soviet Union has a plan for twenty years. Her Majesty's Government have not got a plan for twenty minutes. For us to continue in the old way in these debates, talking about conventional weapons, using the same old platitudes, the same shibboleths, the old political nostrums, with a sham fight on defence between the two Front Benches, means very little. It is to ignore the realities of the situation.
When Mr. Khrushchev comes forward with a 20-year programme for Communism in the U.S.S.R, we may sneer and jeer at it and try to dispose of it as though it were nothing, but the fact remains that people all over the world will begin to wonder. Mr. Khrushchev

will be able to say, "Forty years ago, or thirty years ago, you sneered at us and said that an agricultural country could not advance into the new industrial era". Nobody with any knowledge of the world situation today can but admit that it is a programme which will appeal to the imagination of thinking people throughout the world.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend will not deny that, ex hypothesi, it follows from what he is saying that, if we had a truly Socialist Britain, not the wishy-washy concept which is sometimes put forward, the British people, with their ability, could do every bit as well.

Mr. Hughes: Of course I believe in the ability of the British people.

Sir F. Maclean: Will the hon. Member admit, also, that the Chinese and the Russians have conscription?

Mr. Hughes: They have conscription; but it is not conscription which has brought about the technical advance of Russia. I have little doubt that there are schools of thought in Russia which take the view that conscription is a bad thing and want to get rid of it.

Sir F. Maclean: So do we.

Mr. Hughes: And so do we, but now that we have got rid of it the hon. Member wants to bring it back again.
I do not wish to delay the House, but this is a serious argument. We have to think in terms of planning this country for prosperity and for peace. We must use the brains, resources and character of the British people in the right way. If we do that and if we have a lead from the Government, we shall abandon the old ideas and traditional policies of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, realising that we are in the atomic age. If this country is to survive and continue, with all its glorious traditions, into what I believe should be a glorious future, we must change our policies and have a new dynamic in politics and industry. I hope that some Government in this country will understand that before it is too late.

10.3 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has given me a good deal of homework in one way


and another during the past Session, or so it seems as I look back over the past few months, and it is not inappropriate, therefore, that I should have to undergo this final examination at his hands during the last week of term. The hon. Gentleman has always been extremely courteous and fair to me personally. Tonight's debate has been no exception. I thank him for giving me notice of many of the points he raised this evening. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not propose to direct his fire at me, but if I am to answer the debate as it deserves and as his contribution to it deserves, I shall, I fear, be obliged to direct some fire at him. I hope that he will not think me unchivalrous for so doing.
I shall come presently to what the hon. Member had to say about Kuwait. First, I wish to comment briefly on some of the points raised by him and by other hon. Members on both sides about matters outside the more restricted sphere of the Kuwait operation. The hon. Member for Dudley and my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) referred to the level of our forces in Germany. I remind them of what I think they know very well already, namely, that any adjustments of our force levels in Germany have been made only after the fullest consultation with our allies in W.E.U. and with SACEUR. With regard to the future of the levels of our forces in Germany in relation to the present situation and contingency, I can only remind the House of what the Minister of Defence said on 26th July in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to the effect that he and Mr. McNamara found themselves
in general agreement about the military measures which might become desirable, but only when the Foreign Secretaries have met and decided the general policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 411.]
I take that to mean that only after my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary has returned from the meeting of Foreign Secretaries will it be possible or desirable for Her Majesty's Government to decide on their attitude and the possibility of their action in the present situation.

Mr. Wigg: I was in the House when the Minister of Defence gave that reply,

but it begs the question. The Government are publicly committed to maintaining 55,000 troops in Germany. There are not 55,000 troops there; there are several thousand less than that. If I am wrong, will the hon. Gentleman put me right?

Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that what I have said begs the question, but I am not prepared to go further than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence went in reply to the Question to which I have referred.
I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) to the effect that an increased level of conventional forces would present us with a degree of opportunity of manœuvre which seems to be desirable in a situation such as the present. He asked whether we are reducing our forces in Germany from their present level or whether we are considering any lowering of standard in the composition of those forces. I can tell him categorically that the answer to both questions is "No". I can give him the assurance for which he asks.
I thought that the hon. Member for Dudley rather decried the scale of our military effort in Germany and implied that our influence in the Alliance suffers in proportion. Without accepting his estimate of the effective scale of our effort or his estimate of the influence which we wield in the Alliance, I should like to point out, as I think I did during the debate on the Estimates earlier in the Session, that I believe that our influence is based as much on our deployment world wide—this is not particularly with reference to Germany—and on our ability to discharge operations like the operation in Kuwait successfully, and I believe that in reviewing the extent of our influence vis-à-vis our allies the hon. Gentleman this evening rather tended to underestimate this factor and to over-play the factor of Germany.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, with whom the hon. Member for South Ayrshire took issue at considerable length—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There was a slight difference of opinion.

Mr. Ramsden: —raised a number of arguments which he has deployed before


in connection with the projected numbers which we plan to have in the all-Regular Army. I do not think he will wish me to recapitulate past debates on this subject. He made his points again this evening, and made them emphatically. This is not new. We do not yet know for certain where we shall get to in point of numbers by the end of 1962, because we have not yet got a long enough basis on which to make a projection which is anywhere near accurate enough. When we can see better where we are likely to get to in the autumn, the Government will take the appropriate decision, following the undertakings given in the past to this House and repeated again by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the time of the statement on recruiting last week.
My hon. Friend also asked me whether any change is contemplated in the rôle of the Territorial Army along the lines which he adumbrated. Any such alteration in the rôle of the Territorial Army would certainly require legislation.
I now come back to the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley and the main burden of his speech, which was a criticism of the Kuwait operation. Other hon. Members touched on this matter, too. With every respect for the hon. Member's profound knowledge of the Army and for the genuine desire which I know he has to make constructive criticism of the War Office, I believe that in his general attitude to the Kuwait operation he has succeeded in throwing a certain amount of dust in his own eyes. It will not do to try to make out, as he did this evening, that the whole operation was a put-up job—a public relations exercise, as he called it. I hope he will not mind me saying that it is somewhat mischievous—I use the word advisedly—in the context of a complex and difficult situation such as exists in the Middle East at the moment, to suggest that it could conceivably have been a put-up job.
The hon. Gentleman based this assertion partly on what certain journalists had heard or seen, or rather on what they had not seen, and he mentioned the correspondent of the Daily Telegraph. Perhaps it is not surprising that journalists sometimes fail to see movements of this kind. I felt, as I listened to him, that coming from the hon. Gentleman, an argument of this kind was rather sur-

prisingly unprofessional. Military intelligence would really be the kind of contradiction in terms which the wits are disposed to say it is if it were only capable of finding out the things which are susceptible of confirmation by journalists.
In this instance, and as a background to our obligation to the Ruler under the agreement, Her Majesty's Government acted in the light of professional advice. The hon. Gentleman himself is quite willing to call professional opinion to his support when it happens to coincide with the case he is arguing. I believe that he is himself, in view of his admittedly wide experience and knowledge of these matters, being a little unprofessional in basing his charges on the arguments which he has put forward tonight. He analysed the statements of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence.
It seemed to me that when the hon. Member was doing that he could make a convincing case of his analysis only by starting from the assumption that the Kuwait operation was a put-up job to begin with. If one starts from that assumption, one can analyse Ministerial statements and make them mean almost what one wants. The hon. Member, however, is not entitled to make that assumption. Without it, I thought his arguments extremely unconvincing.
It has been said yesterday by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and again tonight by the hon. Member for Dudley that it was a bit of luck for "Bulwark" to be where she was when she was and to get to where she did when she did. I have an idea that this kind of thing always has been said, and probably always will be said, whenever naval dispositions in advance of an event turn out to have been correctly made as the result of an accurate appreciation and sound strategy. When the ships are there and in a position to do their job, it is said that it is luck. If they are not there, it is said to be incompetence.
This is an old chestnut. I have not looked these things up—I have not had time—but it would not surprise me to find that when Nelson failed to catch the French fleet in the West Indies, the Opposition of the day moved a Motion of censure on the Government, and that when he caught the French off the Nile


and beat them, the Opposition said that it was a bit of luck that he happened to be there at the time. That is the kind of thing that Oppositions always say, although I am surprised to find the hon. Member for Dudley, with his knowledge of these matters, in such company.
The same considerations apply to the armour which was on board the L.S.T.s in the Gulf and which arrived on the first day. As my right hon. Friends have already pointed out to the House, it is not really surprising that, When an operation of this importance is on the books, with forces marked for its execution if need should arise, those forces should be exercised in their projected rôle; and it is not surprising that these exercises should be planned with such a high degree of realism that, as happened in this instance, and as happened fortunately, the exercise could easily be turned into the real thing.
The hon. Member for Dudley said that he did not believe that there were enough tanks in Kuwait in time to have put up an effective defence. I can only assure him that this does not correspond with my awn information, which was confirmed by what I saw. There are Kuwaiti tanks; they are Centurions. I saw them exercising in close liaison with our infantry, to the evident satisfaction of our infantry. Their crews speak English, which obviously makes things easier. This is in addition to the seaborne armoured force which arrived and was in a position to fight by the evening of 1st July.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What if there had been an enemy?

Mr. Ramsden: The force was in a position to take them on had need arisen.
The hon. Member makes play with the fact that there was no attack by an enemy and tries to make out that, for that reason, the expedition was in vain, like the manoeuvres of the Duke of York, to whom he referred. That is an easy argument to put. It is an argument which is bad luck on the soldier who has to go in fulfilment of his mission to where he is sent when he finds that nothing happens. One of the reasons why nothing happens may be that the soldier is there and in a position to do his duty. It is too facile altogether to

assume that when nothing happens as a result of the presence of our soldiers the operation in which they have been engaged can be said to have been an unnecessary one.
I have digressed, provoked by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. I want to touch on the question of anti-tank weapons. It is true and admitted that the only thing which can really make an infantryman feel happy in the presence of enemy armour is one of his own tanks close beside him in a hull-down position, but there are times in war—though, as I have explained, Kuwait was not one of them—when tanks cannot get up into the bridgehead, or, more likely in modern times, the airhead, and the infantry have to rely for a time on their own battalion anti-tank weapons. Having had a little experience of such a situation myself, and, in particular, after all the criticism I have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite, of our present anti-tank infantry weapons, I took particular interest in how the Kings and Inniskillings were deployed for anti-tank defence.
They had the Mobet. It seemed to me there were enough of them and that the infantry had full confidence in them. Because of the somewhat gloomy views which have been expressed from the benches opposite of the capabilities of this weapon, I took particular interest in how it was proposed to use it and of what the men thought of it. Any static weapon like an anti-tank gun obviously has its tactical limitations. When it fires it is likely to give its position away. These limitations can be overcome to a great extent by siting in defilade, which is the responsibility of local commanders. From what I saw—I was particularly interested in this—it has been fully and responsibly discharged. The other thing and an obvous thing about an anti-tank gun is that it should be able to knock out a tank and not just bounce off.
There was no doubt that the troops to whom I spoke had full confidence in their gun being able to do what was required of it. I would conclude by saying that my own opinion is that the deficiencies, if any, of our modern battalion anti-tank weapons has been wildly exaggerated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that if it were me I should


be just as happy to confront a modern tank with this weapon as to rely on a 6-pounder in face of the kind of tanks which our infantry had to face during the last war.
The hon. Gentleman and others, particularly the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, asked me about anti-aircraft cover which was available to our force in Kuwait. It is true that we did not move in any anti-aircraft guns, though it is not true that this was done for lack of the ability to move them in existing air transports. It is untrue to suggest that the force in Kuwait was without adequate air defence. There was a squadron of Hunters in Kuwait from the first day and another in the area. There were Canberras as from the second day and a little later there were aircraft available from the "Victorious".
In addition to the Royal Air Force's own resources, naval radar was available to control and direct these forces. Bearing in mind their capability for both ground attack and air-to-air attack, these forces provided our troops in Kuwait with an adequate degree of air cover and protection. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air may have an opportunity later this evening of disposing in more detail of some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman about aircraft. I would only say that the fact is that with the aircraft which we have, and which he decried, we did this operation successfully.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member has pointed out, quite clearly, that this has been a war in which certain usefulness may have been achieved because the troops were there and did not have to fight. Suppose this operation had developed into a large-scale war with the bombing of towns in Iraq and a general flare-up in the Middle East. Does he not think that with the remembrance of Suez the oil wells could have been destroyed and the pipelines would have been cut?

Mr. Ramsden: With respect, I am trying to answer a series of points put to me by the hon. Member for Dudley. I cannot see that the rather hypothetical question asked by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has much connection with the arguments which I am trying to advance.
The hon. Member for Dudley mentioned mines, or the absence of mines.

I can only tell him that I saw and walked beside some minefields. I did not go quarrying about with my umbrella to see whether they were mines or tin cans, but they seemed to be admirably sited and well covered by the fire of our troops. It is fair to rely on one's observations in relation to what the hon. Member said about its seeming to be impossible to fight in tanks in Kuwait in the temperatures prevailing there. As the hon. Member was the first to tell me before I went there, it gets quite cool at night and there are periods in the evenings and mornings when temperatures are not intolerable even in tanks. The troops whom I saw exercising disproved the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry if I misled the hon. Gentleman. I was trying to establish that the life of a Centurion tank if used extensively in temperatures of that kind is extremely limited. The hon. Gentleman will have the figures for British tanks, but I understand that even the Americans, taking special measures, find that the limit is incredibly low.

Mr. Ramsden: I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Member on that point, which is, no doubt, more valid than the one which I thought he was making. It applies, of course, to tanks on whatever side.
The hon. Member said that among the deficiencies of the Beverley aircraft was its inability to carry a long wheel-based Land Rover. I simply cannot understand this allegation. It can carry a 30,000 lb. payload, and its doors are 10 ft. by 10 ft. The wheel base of a long wheel-based Land Rover is about 16 ft. and the Beverley is a great deal longer. Anyway, the Britannia strategic freighter can take five Land Rovers of the type to which the hon. Member referred. I simply cannot understand that the point which he made in this connection is in any way valid.
It was a great privilege to me to see some of those involved in this operation at first hand. One came away with a firm impression that it had been admirably conducted. I was in Germany in the first week of events in Kuwait, visiting B.A.O.R., and there is no mistaking the fact that our having discharged such an important commitment as this in such good time and with such efficiency gave a great fillip to morale


there. The same is true of feeling in the country at large outside the Services. In any case, it puts the hon. Member for Dudley, who has been somewhat of a prophet of woe about our ability in this connection, in a difficult position. He has been saying for years that we were incapable of doing the very thing that we have done successfully. However, I think that in his heart of hearts the hon. Gentleman, who cherishes the efficiency of our fighting Services, is really pleased, too.
The hon. Gentleman is entitled, if he likes, to say that I am not much of a judge of such an operation, and, certainly, I have no title to claim the kind of military expertise that he has, but one does not need, I think, great expertise to tell the difference between a good show and a dud show. I can argue only from what I heard and saw, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that troops do not speak and bear themselves with the same confidence which I found in Kuwait unless they are satisfied with themselves and with their equipment and unless they have faith in their commanders.

Mr. Wigg: That is a very valuable assessment, but it is not mine. One can, of course, say that the mere ability to transport a large number of men in a limited period is good, but the standard of judgment is what would have been the situation if we had been engaged in actual operations. Could they then have fought? That is the real test. What weight of equipment was lifted if one judges this, as one can judge it, against the American operation, Big Slam? In that operation they used 447 aircraft and lifted 11,000 tons, and yet the whole weight of technical opinion in their Service Press is that that operation was a failure. Then we come along and lift 700 tons. The hon. Gentleman himself gave the game away. He said "with the aircraft that we had available", With the aircraft that we had available this was a first-class staff exercise; but we could not have fought.

Mr. Ramsden: The aircraft that we had available and the troops and the equipment that we had available and which we produced to handle this operation were such as were adequate to discharge the operation and to have discharged it in the face of an enemy. I

cannot see the relevance of any comparison with an American exercise under quite different conditions.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Wigg rose—

Mr. Ramsden: I do not want to labour the point. There is disagreement between myself and the hon. Gentleman. I want to get on and finish.
I have said something of the Army's part in the operation, somewhat naturally, because that is my prime responsibility, but I must end by saying how much I was struck by what a welcome example this operation presented of inter-Service co-operation at all levels. The rôle of "Bulwark" has been referred to and is well known, but there were many other things—the cavalry captain who landed up at the airfield at Kuwait and found himself doing an admirable job as adjutant to the Royal Air Force station commander; the skill of the ground control staff and the pilots in talking the transport aircraft in to an unfinished airfield in difficult conditions of visibility owing to the blowing sand; the rôle of naval radar in helping to control the air defence forces over Kuwait; forward observation officers with call on the Navy for defensive fire; and many other examples, all of which, as I have said, sent one homewards with the impression that within its limited scope here was an operation of which all concerned could justly be proud.
As I have said, I believe that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection—and, I hope, the more for the arguments which I have tried to advance tonight—will come to share that opinion, too. I have tried to answer point by point what he said. I believe my answers to have been right, and he has accepted many of them. To the extent that he has done so, I hope that they will carry some measure of conviction with him, because otherwise we shall begin to doubt his judgment on military affairs for which we have acquired some respect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the answers which I have given.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I accept everything that he has said except for one thing. He is not right about the long wheel-based Land Rovers.

Orders of the Day — R.A.F. TRANSPORT COMMAND

10.34 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I propose to draw the attention of the House to certain inadequacies of the transport force of the Royal Air Force. I am afraid that it is a subject which may be a little dull and statistical, but it may be of some consolation to hon. Gentlemen who wish to raise other subjects that I hope that it will be a comparatively brief debate.
I want to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Air for coming to reply to this debate. I know that he had an important Royal Air Force engagement tonight, and it is good of him to miss it for this purpose. He is always helpful and courteous, and I know that he will give a full and helpful reply. The main purpose of my speech is to indicate that the transport force cannot carry heavy equipment long distances.
When I talk of the inadequacy of this force, I make it clear that this is no reflection whatever on its personnel. I have often travelled in their aircraft and have seen them at work, and I say without hesitation that the officers, N.C.Os. and men of the Royal Air Force are as efficient and as keen as those in any other branch of the Service—perhaps more so. But there can be little doubt that the force is inadequate from the point of view of carrying heavy equipment.
We have already heard earlier tonight how, on various operations, including the Kuwait operation, "Operation Starlight," the Ghana-Congo airlift, and the Jordan operation, heavy equipment was not carried long distances, and, in the case of Jordon, was carried only by borrowing aircraft not belonging to the transport force.
I intend to review as briefly as possible the aircraft which are available for the transport force. I am afraid that one has to speak about payloads and ranges, and, of course, these factors tend to merge with each other, and it is very difficult to talk about the payload or range alone, because the shorter the range the greater the payload and vice versa. The only device, short of a graph, is to refer to the constant payload. I will have to refer to a payload of 20,000

lbs. because that is the approximate weight of a tank or armoured car, or of ninety men.
The Beverley, with a payload of 20,000 lbs., can fly only 2,370 miles. The Argosy, with a payload of 20,000 lbs., can fly only 1,210 miles. The Comet IV, with the same payload, can fly only 2,590 miles. From the point of view of distance these aircraft are inadequate for carrying heavy equipment.
In addition, there is the difficulty of fitting heavy equipment into them. Hare, we must deal with another factor—cargo cross-section. Only the Beverley of these three aircraft has an adequate cross-section—10 ft. by 10 ft.—which will permit it to carry heavy and bulky equipment. The Argosy has a cross-section of 6 ft. by 8 ft., while the Comet has 6 ft. by 6 ft.
It is obvious to hon. Members who are familiar with even elementary equipment that even trucks will not get into these aircraft, except for the Beverley, which is a short-range, slow, piston-engined, rather old aircraft. Thus, we are left with the Britannia, which can carry a payload of 20,000 lbs. 5,500 miles. This aircraft would appear to be the answer from the point of view of strategic freightage in Transport Command. But the Britannia, unfortunately, has some serious defects.
First of all, it can only be loaded from a height of 10 ft. Anything driven into it has to be driven up a 10 ft. ramp. The fact that it can be loaded from the side only presents considerable difficulty if wheeled vehicles have to be moved into it and turned round inside the aircraft. It also has the rather serious defect of cargo cross-section. Its width is 11 ft. 5 in. and its height 6 ft. 8 in. So, once more, any item of equipment which is more than 6 ft. 8 in. in height cannot be put into the aircraft.
At present, therefore, it appears that the transport force has only one aircraft capable of carrying a payload of 20,000 lbs. farther than 3,000 miles, and that, of course, has the serious defects to which I have referred. It cannot be loaded adequately and its height is such that there is a strict limitation on the height of the equipment that can be put into it.
The only strategic transport aircraft cannot take a medium sized truck and it cannot take a light tank. Both the Crusader and the Valentine light tanks and armoured cars have a height of 7½ ft. It does not require much knowledge of cubic geometry to realise that equipment of that height cannot be fitted into an aircraft of a height of 6 ft. 8 in. It will not take the 8-in. howitzer, which is 7 ft. 8 in. high, or a 155 mm. gun, which is 7 ft. 10 in. high, so there is a very wide range of quite essential modern Army equipment which cannot be carried at all by the transport force except for short distances of substantially less than 3,000 miles.
I think that arising from the last debate we had this evening most hon. Members agree that there is danger of trouble arising anywhere between Hong Kong and British Honduras or between Persia and Central Africa, and the distances involved are very extensive indeed. The Middle East is 4,000 miles away from London, Central Africa is about 4,500 miles away, Singapore and Hong Kong are well over 7,000 miles away and the Caribbean Sea is over 5,000 miles away. All these places are potential trouble spots and we have no means of getting heavy equipment to those areas with the troops to be carried overland.
It may be suggested that these difficulties could be overcome by staging, but staging presents serious difficulties, particularly when there is nowhere to stage the aircraft en route. This applies particularly to the Atlantic and parts of Central Africa. The Under-Secretary may in reply point out that the present strategic concept is to have supply dumps near all the potential trouble spots in the world and to use short-haul transport to move the equipment from the supply dumps to the areas where it is required.
This argument may have been valid at one time, but its validity is rapidly decreasing. In the first place, these supply dumps, which are scattered all over the world, contain largely obsolete equipment—large quantities of surplus equipment from the last war—and they are rapidly becoming extremely obsolete. If this equipment is to be replaced, it is obviously both financially and economically a very difficult matter to replace

it in adequate quantities in these various supply dumps. It is obviously much more sensible to use this equipment from a central supply dump in the United Kingdom and to fly it out to the places where it is wanted.
There is also, I think the Under-Secretary would have to agree, the political difficulty that many of these places which we have used up to now as supply dumps will eventually be no longer available to us as sites for military dumps. At present it seems that there is a good deal of potential danger in this situation. We cannot take heavy equipment more than 3,000 miles.
It has been said that the answer to all these difficulties is the Short and Harland Belfast aircraft. This in its conception is certainly a very fine aircraft. It can carry 83,000 lbs. for 1,000 miles. It can carry 25,000 lbs. a distance of 4,800 miles. It has a very adequate cargo cross-section of 12 ft. by 12 ft. The aircraft in its conception is certainly an excellent possibility for strategic freight for the transport force. The great difficulty is that we are not promised delivery until 1964. What is to happen until then? What will happen if trouble breaks out in a place like British Honduras or Hong Kong or Persia? How are we to get heavy equipment to our forces in a very short time? The year 1964 has been frequently mentioned in the House in this connection, but will the aircraft be delivered in 1964 and, if so, how many will be delivered? Is this merely to be a prototype of the Belfast aircraft, or is it to be in squadron service? I have received information, which I hope will prove to be erroneous, that it is probable that it will not be available in 1964. There is talk of it not being available for squadron service until 1965 or 1966.
Another difficulty is that the Belfast has not yet been assembled. Some metal has been cut from it, but there is no such thing as a Belfast aircraft at present. Therefore, we have no means of knowing how satisfactory it will be in practice. On many occasions in the past aircraft have proved on careful trial to be unsatisfactory. Both sides of the House have had their difficulties in this. Hon. Gentlemen who have been sailing at Cowes this week will have seen the spectre of the Brabazon in Cowes. That


proved to be an unsuccessful large aircraft. The Belfast aircraft seems to be very much a bird in the bush instead of a bird in the hand.
I wonder to what extent the Government are influenced by the politics of Northern Ireland in being so insistent that this aircraft is the answer to our problems as regards strategic freight aircraft, even though it will not be in service for a long time. I hope that the Government will take a realistic view. We certainly want the citizens of Belfast to have as much employment as possible, but if it means denuding our strategic force for several years of the ability to carry heavy equipment long distances we are paying a very high price in the security of this country.
The question I want to ask the Under-Secretary is whether the Belfast will be available in 1964 in squadron strength. If not, when will it be available? The most important question of all is this: what will the Air Ministry do about carrying heavy equipment long distances between now and when the Belfast is available? There is no escape from the fact that at present our troops cannot go round the world with their heavy equipment. They travel to a large extent like tourists on a Cook's holiday with light luggage. This is a lamentable state of affairs.
Is there any other aircraft which could be obtained in a short time. The only one of which I know, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will agree about this, is the Lockheed C130E. I think that one has to be rather careful about talking about the Lockheed Company, or about any other aircraft company for that matter. I think that the proper attitude to be adopted by the Minister, or a private Member, when dealing with aircraft companies is that of a millionaire talking to an adventuress. He must be polite but cautious.
We have to consider that this company may well have the answer to this problem. The Lockheed Company has a very highly developed sales technique, which has certainly not been absent in this House. Certain Members have been invited to Atlanta, and other Members have had other inducements to become interested in the affairs of the Lockheed Company. I have taken no part in any

of these agreeable occasions, so I can declare a complete lack of interest.
We have to face the situation that the Lockheed C130E is the only aircraft, until the Belfast arrives, which can satisfy the wants of strategic freightage and carry heavy equipment over long distances. Going back to the payload, it can carry 20,000 lbs. 4,030 miles. It has an adequate cargo cross-section of 10 ft. 3 ins. by 9 ft. 1 in. It can carry medium-sized vehicles, light tanks, bulldozers, any kind of missile, or medium artillery, and, furthermore, these things can be loaded on pallets so that loading takes a couple of minutes and the aircraft can be turned round rapidly. Its capabilities have been proved. The Military Air Transport Service of the United States Army has 350 of them in service. It is the standard transport aircraft not only of the United States Army, but of the Canadian and Australian Armies.
The other important factor is its early availability. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm this. I think that the first aircraft would be available within twelve months of a firm order, and then two aircraft every month after that. The problems of the transport force could be greatly reduced within a year or eighteen months from today if a decision were made about this now. It is far from my business to attempt to sell Lockhead aircraft to the House, but is there any other aircraft which is available so soon, or which can do the job as this aircraft can? I do not think that there is.
There are certain arguments against the C130E. One is the widespread view that the heavy equipment of the Army and Royal Air Force can be carried only in a Belfast. That was said last Wednesday by the Secretary of State for Air, and it has been said many times by Government spokesmen. This puzzles me. If the C130E is the standard aircraft of the United States, Canadian and Australian Armies, what is this mysterious bulky equipment which the British Army has which will not fit into it? Why is ours the odd Army which has bigger and bulkier equipment?
It does not sound a convincing argument. Admittedly this aircraft has not the large cross-section of 12 ft. by 12 ft. which the Belfast has, but if it is


standard equipment with those other armies, why is it that we are so concerned to wait for the Belfast? There are, of course, financial and economic arguments. This aircraft costs £993,000. We have a balance of payments problem and dollar difficulties. But £993,000 is a small part of last year's bill for imports from the United States. It came to £567 million. Last year we increased our import bill from the United States by £29 million which we paid for Boeing 707s for B.O.A.C., so that I do not think that it would be a serious financial blow for us to equip ourselves with some C130s.
We could build them in this country under licence, which would mean that they would cost 20 per cent. of the dollar figure which I have mentioned. That would bring employment to this country and provide a great economic benefit to the aircraft industry as well. It would carry the penalty that the delivery period would be eighteen months instead of twelve but that would be a very big improvement on the period of three, four or five years that we should have to wait before we can get the Belfast as a transport aircraft.
The Air Ministry may well have an ostensible argument that it does not want to buy C130s, because shortly there will be available a C130 with short take-off and landing capabilities which would be a more useful aircraft. But this S.T.O.L. aircraft will not be available for another three-and-a-half years, so that whatever happens we should still be confronted with the difficulty that if we do not equip ourselves with some C130s, we shall be without an adequate transport aircraft for the long-distance haulage of heavy military freight.
I see no alternative to the purchase of at least a few of these aircraft and I should like the Under-Secretary of State to address himself to that matter. If he says that we should not purchase them, I should like to know what we are to do until the Belfast comes into squadron service. We do not know when a brush fire type of war might break out in any part of the world which might necessitate our flying heavy military equipment long distances at short notice. If we are unable to do that, we may be faced with a disagreeable humiliation from the point of view of foreign policy. We

may also find that what started out as a small brush fire war might turn into something very different. If we cannot fly the Army's heavy equipment with the men it may be that many lives will be lost. So, if this big gap in the capabilities of the transport force is not removed before we get the Belfast aircraft, there may be dire danger.
I should like the Under-Secretary to bear in mind that we on this side of the House will continue to press this matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take offence if I remind him that we are dealing with a dying Government, but with one which may not die completely for several years, and so it is the bounden duty of hon. Members on this side of the House to ensure that during that time we maintain the military efficiency of our Armed Forces.

10.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) takes such a long-term view of the life of the Government I can assure him that we shall be here to torment him for a good many years to come, but in the meantime I will try to answer some of the points which he raised. The hon. Gentleman went into a great deal of detail about the ranges and payloads of various types of transport aircraft. I did not recognise some of the figures which he quoted.
It is mistaken to criticise the Comet as a freighter; it is not, and was never intended to be, a freighter, and we do not use it as a freighter. Secondly, it seemed odd to me to ignore ranges of 2,000 miles or under and to treat such ranges as though they were not worth discussing. There are one or two Questions on the Order Paper for tomorrow to my right hon. Friend on these matters, to which replies will be given, and the House will understand that I do not want to anticipate in too great detail what my right hon. Friend will say in his replies.
I should like, however, to refer to the build-up of Transport Command, to which my right hon. Friend referred in some detail in the Air Estimates Memorandum for this year. In it there was an illuminating diagram showing the present transport force and the additions to be made to it during the present


financial year. In presenting the Estimates my right hon. Friend explained that in the last four or five years the load-carrying capacity of Transport Command had trebled. At normal rates of effort we have a capacity of 150 million passenger-miles per month. In the next three years this will be increased to 200 million passenger-miles per month. In emergencies the rate of effort can be doubled for a limited period. Our present capacity is therefore 300 million passenger-miles per month. As for freight, the carrying capacity of Transport Command normally is 20 million ton-miles a month and in an emergency it can be doubled to 40 million ton-miles a month.
As the hon. Member said in his opening sentence, figures are somewhat dull, but at any rate they tell a very impressive story in this context and they show that Transport Command is a very potent force in its capacity, speed and range, and in all those capacities there will be a great increase in the next few years.
The hon. Member went into some detail about various types of aircraft, in the main critically. I want to reply to him in a little detail. If he refers to the Air Estimates Memorandum he will see that the Britannia is our main strategic transport at present. It is capable of carrying almost a company of troops over ranges up to 2,500 miles. I have been happy to make arrangements for hon. Members to pay a visit to the Royal Air Force at Singapore during the Recess, and they will be conveyed in a Britannia. I hope that they will have the personal experience of travelling that great distance in thirty-two hours, including all stops. They will see what a wonderful aircraft the Britannia is. We have twenty-three of these in the service.

Mr. Albert Roberts: How many hon. Members are going on that trip?

Mr. Taylor: I think that eleven Members, including three from another place, are to make the trip, but there will be others in the aircraft.

Mr. Cronin: The hon. Member is digressing in a most engaging manner about this pleasant trip which he is arranging for hon. Members, but he

should make it clear to the House that the Britannia, although an admirable aeroplane, will not take any heavy equipment, or any equipment at all higher than 6ft. 8in., and for that reason its use is severely limited.

Mr. Taylor: We have twenty-three Britannias in service at present, and this aircraft is capable of doing a very useful job in the Royal Air Force. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of examining it and forming a view from a practical standpoint when he goes.
I shall not go into great detail in this debate. It would take too long. I should have to go into about twenty different types of aircraft and measure the holds and the equipment put into them, which would be very dull and not very helpful at this time of night.
The Argosy aeroplane has been referred to in some detail in previous debates. It will carry seventy troops or 30,000 lbs. of freight over considerable distances. Its rear-loading doors enable the Argosy to carry heavy equipment such as an armoured car, field artillery or an anti-tank weapon. We plan to buy fifty-six of these.
The hon. Member for Loughborough and his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) spoke about the Kuwait operation. I cannot accept their argument that the Air Force was unable to move heavy equipment in that operation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 19th July that in the first six days of the Kuwait operation 7,000 men and 700 tons of stores were moved to airfields in the Persian Gulf and Aden. Most of this was done in the first forty-eight hours by about seventy transport aircraft of the Royal Air Force.
The Beverley, Which is our medium-range transport aircraft, is capable of carrying, and did carry, armoured ears or field artillery over ranges of up to 1,500 miles. I have here a table showing the capacity of the Beverley. Three interesting examples are given. The Beverley can carry at 5,000 ft. over a distance of 1,680 nautical miles two Ferret scout cars weighing 19,000 lbs. It can carry one Saracen armoured personnel carrier weighing 22,400 lbs. a distance of 1,500 miles at that altitude. It can carry one Saladin armoured oar weighing 23,520


lbs. 1.430 nautical miles. These figures seem to refute in a remarkable way the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cronin: I think the hon. Gentleman is missing the point of the debate. The Beverley and the Argosy are admirable aircraft, and I agree with what he says about them, but what they cannot do is carry the equipment he referred to over really long distances in excess of 3,000 miles. We have no aircraft which can do it.

Mr. Taylor: I shall have something more to say in a few minutes about long-distance freighters.
The hon. Member for Dudley said that we had not in the Royal Air Force an aircraft capable of carrying a heavy tank. That is quite true, but I know of no aircraft in the world today which will carry a heavy tank. It is unrealistic to put a point like that.
The hon Member for Loughborough spoke about stockpiles. If we accepted his argument and abandoned any attempt to stockpile equipment overseas, the demands on our air transport capacity would virtually be limitless. That, however, is not the Government's policy. It does not make sense to build up an enormous capacity of expensive, long-range aircraft to transport comparatively cheap items of equipment which can just as easily be stockpiled much nearer to likely trouble centres. Purely as a matter of economics, the use of a £1 million aircraft like the Britannia to move stores costing only a few thousand pounds, such as light trucks and trailers, is a practice which should, as far as possible, be avoided.
The hon. Member went into critical detail about the Belfast. The main purpose of this aircraft is to carry bulky and expensive items which cannot economically be stockpiled. A good example is provided by the transport of surface-to-air missile systems, which are exceedingly expensive. It would be uneconomic to keep these in overseas stockpiles. They need servicing and air conditioning, their working parts must be kept right and we could not reasonably store them in some climates. When the Belfast comes into service in 1964, it will

not be too late to transport this type of missile.
I do not think it right for me to anticipate the Answer which my right hon. Friend will give tomorrow about the phasing-in dates of this aircraft for service or about the rate of build-up, to which the hon. Member referred.

Mr. Frederick Willey: On a point of order. Is it the case, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Minister cannot give a reply because there is a Question on the Paper dealing with this matter? If that is so, it seems that if the rule concerning anticipation extends so far, there would be nothing to prevent an hon. Member from making debates pointless by putting down Questions at a subsequent date referring to the matters which are to be debated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I do not think that it is out of order to anticipate an Answer to a Question.

Mr. Cronin: Further to that point of order. I am quite agreeable not to press the Under-Secretary to give the information if he feels that it can be more happily and usefully given tomorrow by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for what you have said, and I thank the hon. Member for his accommodation. I have taken advice about this. The plain fact is that I am reluctant to anticipate a reply which my right hon. Friend will be asked to give tomorrow. It is as simple as that. It is not a question of anticipation or the rule extending this far.
The hon. Member for Loughborough compared the Lockheed C130 with the Belfast. I have some interesting figures. The Lockheed C130B will carry 22,500 lb., or about 75 troops, over a range of 3,300 miles. The Belfast will carry 25,000 lb., or 83 troops, 4,000 miles. That clearly demonstrates that the Belfast will be a superior aircraft, both in range and in freight-carrying capacity.

Mr. Cronin: indicated assent.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member talked about a few pieces of metal being cut up. I have on two or three occasions, both while I was at the Ministry of Supply and in my present office, paid visits to


Queen's Island to see how this aircraft was progressing. It is getting along well, but it is a very big aircraft. Quite new techniques are being introduced into it in design and in manufacture, and it is taking time to get the prototype into the air. I have no doubt that when the day comes for the Belfast to be brought into service it will be a first-class aircraft which will fulfil the operational requirements expected of it.

Mr. Cronin: When the day comes.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, when the day comes. The hon. Gentleman also talked of the items of equipment to be carried by the Belfast and the Lockheed C130. There is a large number of such items and I cannot describe them in detail at this stage, but the Belfast will enable us to move Bloodhound or Thunderbird Mark 11 by air. It will have a load capacity of 35 tons.
The Lockheed C130, although an admirable aeroplane, does not approach this capacity, and there are items of engineering stores which the Belfast can, and the Lockheed C130 cannot, carry. I do not think that it is reasonable to compare these two aircraft. The Lockheed, in extensive use with the United States Air Force, is really a tactical freighter and not in the same category as the Belfast.
The hon. Member also made no reference at all to the short-range transport force, but that is a part of Transport Command and certainly worthy of honourable mention, so to speak, in this debate.
If he will refer to the chart in the Air Estimates Memorandum he will see that we plan to increase substantially the number of Whirlwinds in service, and to buy Belvederes and twin-rotor helicopters, of which we have three in service. It must be remembered that aircraft may well have to operate from forward positions, possibly on hastily prepared airstrips, and the helicopter is at a great advantage in this rôle.
We are going very thoroughly into the question of short take-off and landing aircraft and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that these points are relevant. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for War who, earlier this evening in the latter part of his speech, paid a tribute to

the work of the Royal Air Force in the Kuwait operation. I was, however, a little disturbed and, indeed, disappointed with the criticisms of the hon. Member for Dudley in that preceding debate. I must say that he reminded me somewhat of the High Court judge who, when asked what he thought of a particular counsel for whom he had no great regard, replied, "He was disappointingly good." That, I think, would sum up the criticisms of the hon. Member for Dudley who really indicated in his speech that the operation had gone so well that he felt bound to criticise it willy-nilly.

Mr. Willey: Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to reply to what my hon. Friend said in another debate some hours ago? I raise that point because I have concern with the last subject down for discussion tonight, and that might not be replied to because there will not be a Minister to speak on the subject after that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House is considering the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill and so this is all one debate.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Taylor: I was just about to say when we had that interruption that, as we all know, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has just come in from the night shift. He has not been here at all during these two debates which started at or just after 7 o'clock. In winding up the previous debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War asked the indulgence of the House for me to reply to questions affecting the Royal Air Force which had been raised in that debate, and this was generally accepted. I give the hon. Gentleman that information just to assure him that I am not out of order and that I am being courteous to his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.
His hon. Friend—I realise I must come to this now, although I did not intend to mention it—denigrated not only Transport Command of the Royal Air Force but other arms of the Service,


too. He ranged, as is his fashion, very widely, and he cast at me a lot of attractive propositions which I do not propose to reply to now, particularly as he is not here, but he made some very sweeping allegations denigrating the Lightning fighter, which is just coming into squadron service in the Royal Air Force. I am not prepared to bandy arguments with him or anyone else about the performance characteristics of this aeroplane. In any case, I am inhibited from doing so by reasons of security and responsibility, but I want to make it clear to the House that the Lightning fighter with its air-to-air missiles and backed by an air defence and radar system second to none is today an operational weapon system able to deal effectively with any bomber which the Russians have in service.
I mention this in conclusion because I deprecate hon. Members in their speeches giving the impression that the Royal Air Force is an obsolescent Service. It is nothing of the kind. Time after time the Royal Air Force gives a good account of itself and always fulfils more than adequately the tasks imposed upon it. I hope that the House will feel as a result of this short debate that the Royal Air Force is going on business as usual and that we can rely upon it in the future as in the past.

Mr. Cronin: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—and I shall be out of order if I do not say this before he sits down—I should like to thank him for the very agreeable and interesting speech, and it is only with great reluctance that I point out that nothing he has said in any way answered our charge that the transport force is quite incapable of shifting the heavy equipment of troops over very long distances, over 3,000 miles.

Orders of the Day — POWER INDUSTRIES

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I am pleased to have the opportunity of dealing with a subject entirely different from that which we have just debated. In an earlier debate today on industrial injuries the majority of those who took part referred to coal mining and I hope to deal primarily with the coal industry. It is too often forgotten that our

sources of fuel are fundamental to our way of life. The Minister of Power and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry always mean well but to mean, or to moan, is not always sufficient. Last week we debated the country's economic situation. The condition of the mining industry has an important bearing on that subject.
In the years 1957, 1958 and 1959 confidence in the mining industry suffered a severe blow. It should be remembered that that was after the House had listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor giving a glowing account of a future in which the horizon of the mining industry would be one which was ever glowing. The rude shocks administered in those years brought about a slump in recruitment. Summarised reports on the industry have been issued this week and it is startling to find that during the twenty-nine weeks so far of this year only just over 28,000 men have been recruited to the industry. The wastage is 44,000, giving a net loss of 16,000 or roughly about 600 men per week.
What is even more startling is that 60 per cent. of the adults who are leaving the industry are under 31 years of age. There is an acute shortage of men in South Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Midlands, and I understand that there is talk of closing mines in Lancashire to make up the complements in other pits. Although coal is about the only mineral wealth we have and it can last for nearly 400 years at the present rate of extraction, scant attention was paid to this problem in the recent economic debate.
No tangible suggestion has been made in debate for the solution of this manpower problem and I feel that it is time that cognizance was taken of some of the suggestions made by the National Union of Mineworkers on how men might be attracted to the industry. There are mine workers whose take-home pay is no more than £10 a week. Their daughters by tapping typewriter keys can earn as much money. It is time that the Minister and the country realised that something must be done to attract the right type of men into the industry. If this state of affairs is allowed to continue, conditions in the industry will become really serious.
It is all very well to say that we can depend on imported oil or imported methane gas. It should be realised that in probably ten years control of all oil supplies will have passed out of the hands of Europeans, judging by the way things are going in the Middle East and in Africa. We shall then be able to rely only on our own indigenous fuel which, as I have said, can last at the present rate of extraction for almost 400 years.
As I said, we need something to attract young recruits into the mines. It is high time we offered them three weeks' holiday apart from statutory holidays. That would attract some of the young people back from other industries. The I.L.O. has already accepted the principle of three weeks' holiday for mine workers. I should have liked to hear something said about this last week because it is really important. Are we to be complacent and sit back? We mist do something if we are to get the recruits. As I have said, there is a wastage of 600 per week, and the situation is growing more serious. Whenever the country is in difficulties, the mine workers play an admirable part. They are a coherent force. They have always been ready to do the right thing when the nation has needed them.
I want to raise an important point concerning mining examinations. The Parliamentary Secretary knows something about this. I echo the feelings of some of the mine workers who feel that the new type of examination to be introduced will bar many of them from becoming colliery managers. The introduction of the new examination or standard will mean that the only approach available to those not in possession of a degree or diploma will be via the new examination; the opportunity of qualifying with that will be not a right for the individual but a privilege, While I accept the view—it is probably the private view of the Parliamentary Secretary—that we may not want the suave kind of colliery manager, at least we want the man to have a decent background, and we want him to be intelligent.
But the National Association of Colliery Managers is not satisfied. It does not mind the standard being raised, but it believes that every individual inside a

mine should have equal opportunity and that it should not just depend upon the good will of the National Coal Board. Many young people who leave school at 15 may be anxious to go into the mines; they may continue with their employment until they are 21 and may become shot-firers or deputies, and it may be realised that they are potential colliery managers. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will assure me that if such a young man proves to be the right type he will be able to qualify by right as a colliery manager. As is well known, the National Association of Colliery Managers is not satisfied with the intentions of certain individuals controlling mining examinations, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of this. That is just one facet of what should be done to attract young people back into the mining industry.
The question of a national fuel plan has been raised many times in Questions and debate. Last week reference was made to "plan" being a dirty word. There is nothing wrong in a man redeeming himself or changing his mind, and in the past few weeks many hon. Members have changed their minds. It is high time that we had a fuel plan. I have seen the Lurgi system of producing high pressure gas from inferior fuels, and I am a believer in it. I have seen it in Australia, and it is a success. We have our pilot schemes, but the gas industry is still using a lot of oil.
I believe that if the National Coal Board was given some assurance about the use of oil in the gas industry, further expectations from this method of producing gas would be anticipated to our satisfaction. The consumption of oil in the electricity industry is slightly on the increase. I have always believed that we can produce electricity from our indigenous fuel as efficiently as anywhere in the world. Yet we still have, at the moment, some of our plants operating on oil. There are dangers in that.
I do not want to be narrow-minded on this issue, because I believe that if we are to regain our prosperity we must have cheap fuel and it must be abundant. If we can have a plan for electricity and gas I believe that we can work towards that end. But, at present, in spite of what has been said, we have not got that kind of plan which most hon. Members want. There should be more


co-ordination. I know that the chairmen of the Boards of these industries meet from time to time, but that is not sufficient. The Minister should have the courage to say to them that we are going to produce gas and that it will be produced from inferior coal, and that we are going to produce electricity and that it must come from coal.
I believe in refined fuels. How is it that thousands of homes in mid-winter are still at temperatures below 50 degrees? A miner who gets concessionary coal is cold if he moves from the fireside. There are great possibilities here. Why should not every house have some form of central heating? I want to see more heat and power used. We have the means for it in this country. If there is to be industrial expansion at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum, then there can be more demand for our fuel and it would not make any difference to the amount of imported oil.
It is true that our economy should be based on indigenous fuel. At the moment, I know that Lord Robens regards it as part of his job to keep the flag flying. He may be doing so, but he is playing a lone hand, and more could be done by the Ministry than is being done.
We have made some headway with exports. During 1960 we exported 5 million tons of coal. There is no reason why, within the next five years, that figure should not be doubled. I hope that, providing we get the right kind of incentive from the Ministry, and particularly if we join the Common Market, there may be opportunity to export coal to Europe. If our economy is based on such a move, we must realise what it means.
The present situation is a great burden on our balance of payments. In the past, our economy was more or less based on coal and steel. If there is the right kind of foresight towards the demand for power and heat, our mining industry will be efficient, but for that we have to see that there are the recruits for it.
There is far too much play about nuclear energy. Two or three years ago I raised with the present Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor the statement made by Sir John Cockcroft that by 1970

nuclear power would be on parity with power produced by conventional fuels. Sir John has been proved hopelessly wrong. At the moment nuclear energy is really a burden on the taxpayer. Some of the pundits inside that industry have talked about what they are going to do by 1965. My guess is that it will be 1990 before nuclear energy is doing the job that coal can do.
There has been some change of ideas in the last two years. It was Sir John Cockcroft who said in Australia only four years ago what he expected in the course of two or three years. That has not happened. If we really take this matter seriously and if we really think about the prosperity of the country then we are bound to give serious attention to these matters.
I am pretty well versed in the mining industry and I have great faith in it. I am not one of those who would keep men working in the bowels of the earth a day longer than necessary. But I realise that this country will have to depend on its indigenous solid fuel for quite a long time yet. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will give some assurances on the points that I have put forward.
What the country needs now is leadership and incentive. Provided we can get the right kind of leadership, I am sure that we can to some extent improve our economic conditions. But those inside the mining industry want some assurance. How can we expect young people to go into the industry when, as I have said, those in it received such a severe blow in 1957, 1958 and 1959? They must be given some guarantee about producing, shall we say, 190 million tons of coal a year. They must know where they are going, and their conditions must, as I say, be equal to if not better than those provided in other industries.
I am hoping that some improvement will be brought about and that the Parliamentary Secretary will really take the matter to heart.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) has drawn attention to quite serious situations which exist inside the coal industry at the present time. He has related these situations to the general


state of the economy of the country, about which we have heard a good deal recently, and he has made suggestions concerning how that industry could be made to contribute to a much better state of affairs than we were led to believe existed in the nation's economy when we heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech the other day.
I wish to speak about another great industry with which the Parliamentary Secretary is not unconnected—I do not mean in his personal capacity but in his official capacity—and which can, of course, make all the difference between profit and loss, so to speak, in our economy. It is an industry not unconnected with that with which my hon. Friend has just been dealing. I am speaking, of course, of the steel industry.
We have been told by the Government, quite rightly, that if there is to be sacrifice there must be equality of sacrifice all round. That, so to speak, is on the positive side of the Government's attack on the problems which have led to the most recent crisis after ten years of Conservative rule. But there is also the other side of the question. Not only must we have equality of sacrifice in order to deal with the economic situation but we must also, in my submission, be extremely careful not to do things which would look like merely doctrinaire ants, done merely because they are believed in by the party that happens to be in power at the moment and because that party wants to do them even though they are not relevant to the solving of the problems which have given rise to the present crisis.
Most of the steel industry has been handed over again, according to the Statute passed by Parliament, to private investors. There is, however, one extremely important steel combine which has not yet been handed over. I refer to Richard Thomas and Baldwins. If the Government give the impression of being partisan at this stage of the nation's difficulties, it will go very hard with them when they ask the steel industry to co-operate in attempting to solve our difficulties. This combine is way ahead, judged by standards of efficiency, good industrial relations, and forward-lookingness, if there is such an expression. By any standard Richard Thomas and Baldwins is right at the top. This

shows that who owns the capital is entirely irrelevant to questions of efficiency, good industrial relations, etc.
Therefore, if in the middle of a crisis, which many of us think should not have come about after ten years of Conservative rule, the Government persist in handing this firm back to private investors, in spite of the fact that such handing over could not by any stretch of the imagination be held to be relevant to solving the problems underlying the present crisis, they will show themselves to be wantonly partisan and doctrinaire. This should never happen.
One part of the combine of Richard Thomas and Baldwins is the Redbourn works in my constituency, than which there is no more efficient works. Why otherwise would the Government have entrusted it with so much public money in recent times? It is an extremely efficient and happy works. The employees are thoroughly proud of the works. It is being said—I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary would care to give us any information about it and refute it if it is not true—that greedy eyes are being turned upon the works in order to have it hived off from the combine and sold separately because perhaps there is not a sufficient concentration of capital in the country at present to take over the whole combine. I do not know whether this is so, but it is being said. I can well understand that the greedy eyes of other members of the steel industry may be turned upon Redbourn at present. It would cause great upset if this wanton piece of destruction took place and this efficient works in this efficient combine were hived off merely for the doctrinaire purposes of the Government. I hope that it will not happen.
I hope that there are not any ideas in the Government's mind of choosing this moment to hand back Richard Thomas and Baldwins to private investors and, because of the difficulties attendant upon that operation, of hiving off the Redbourn works in Scunthorpe in order the more easily to be able to carry out the operation of handing the whole combine back to private enterprise piecemeal. The Government should have nothing to do with it, at any rate until the crisis which broke upon us the other day, or which we were told about the other day but which had been


coming for a long time, is well out of the way and the problems underlying the crisis solved adequately.
If that is not done, the Government will not be able to escape the charge that they are doing what they are doing not to solve the crisis but to satisfy their doctrinaire ideas as to who should own the capital of big concerns, in spite of the experience with Richard Thomas and Baldwins that who owns the capital is irrelevant and is something about which we should not be arguing in the House, or indeed in the country, when the economy of the country is in the state in which it is at the moment.
My hon. Friend has made suggestions about the coal industry, and I make this suggestion, albeit a negative one, to the Government. The condition of the country's economy is such as to make us all want to come together to try to pull the country out of the situation into which it has been led. I expect that many hon. Gentlemen opposite will turn their noses up a little at the suggestions which have been made from this side of the House. Conditions may be bad, they will say, but Nec tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis, tempus eget. If they say that, it will be a great tragedy for the country, but from conversations I have had, and from speeches made in this House, I know that many hon. Gentlemen opposite will say that times are serious and that they ought to take note of the suggestions from this side of the House even though they go contrary to their doctrinaire ideas. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is in the latter category, and that he will take note of these suggestions.

11.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): We have had a short but interesting debate. I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) about the coal mining industry. We all regret the blow to its confidence which that industry sustained in 1957, continuing through 1958 and 1959, but that blow should have taught us the lesson, and indeed it has taught us the lesson, that the only way any major industry can maintain and advance its position is to be efficient and competive. It was

because the industry had become uncompetitive that its competitors advanced and the requirements for the coal industry's products were reduced.
The hon. Gentleman said two important things. He said that we must have cheap fuel, and that the industry must be efficient. These are truisms which we should keep before us, and when suggestions are advanced as to how the industry should be handled, they should be advanced with these two ends in view—not to protect the industry against competition, but to make it more fit to face competition.
The hon. Gentleman dealt at length with the serious aspect of the loss of manpower in the industry. By and large the figures that he gave were correct. The recruitment figures for men and boys in the first twenty-eight weeks of the last three years are as follows. In 1959, 14,800; in 1960, 19,260; in the same period in 1961, 27,399. There was a substantial increase in recruitment over that period, but unfortunately there was also a substantial increase in the wastage, especially voluntary wastage. In the first twenty-eight weeks of 1959, the voluntary wastage was 20,690. In 1960 the equivalent figure was 31,587; and in the first twenty-eight weeks of this year 31,356 people left the industry voluntarily.
The figure given by the hon. Gentleman is correct. There has been a loss of 16,308 men in the first twenty-eight weeks of this year. This is a serious matter and the drain is still continuing, not by 600 a week but by 900. That, by any standard, presents a challenge, and no method has yet been devised to stop that drain. An intensive recruitment campaign has been conducted by the Board and personal interviews are arranged with people who wish to leave the industry. Their attention is drawn to the many opportunities which are provided and endeavours are made to restore their confidence in the industry. A lot has been said which has damaged confidence in the future of the industry, but the demand for coal will continue at a high level for many years. Men in the industry may be confident that there will be work for them and for their sons provided that we can make the industry efficient.
The loss of manpower is just the spur needed to concentrate more attention upon mechanisation and the need to concentrate a large number of scattered coal faces and to increase the load factor by working not one or two but three shifts a day where possible. That is one of the key ways to compensate for the loss of manpower. The Board is well aware of the challenge facing it and it has been doing quite a lot to meet the problem posed by the loss of manpower. It has been said many times that in 1965 80 per cent. of the output should be coming from new pits or reconstructed pits. The greatest drive for mechanisation is now under way. In 1961 401) new power loading machines are being installed. By the end of the year 50 per cent. of the output will be power loaded compared with 42 per cent. at the end of 1960. The ultimate objective is complete mechanisation wherever that is technically possible. There will be more electric power provided and more power at the elbow of the worker.

Mr. Edward J. Milne: The Parpliamentary Secretary has indicted his desire to see the future of the industry safeguarded. Can he say whether his Department protested against the measures proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week? Surely he must have been aware that an increase in the Bank Rate and a curtailment of expenditure on nationalised industries would cripple such activities as he has mentioned. Before I intervened the hon. Gentleman had said that no money would be spared. What steps were taken by his Department to indicate that attitude to the Chancellor?

Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman need not fear. The mechanisation programme is not being slowed down because of anything that the Chancellor may have done. It will go on as planned.
The hon. Member for Normanton raised the question of some other attraction to bring people back into the mines. He suggested that somehow the Minister should arrange for three weeks' holiday and that the wages should be improved. He knows that these things are not within the Minister's province, and he will agree that they are far better left to the two sides of the industry to negotiate, as they have always negotiated

them and as I hope they always will negotiate them. I cannot give him any assurance on those points, although no doubt they will be noted elsewhere.
Secondly, he raised the question of the mining examination and waxed eloquent upon the fact that opportunity would be lacking when the proposed changes are made, if they are made. I was rather disappointed when, after I had given what I thought was some encouraging news on the matter, he said,
In view of the uncompromising attitude of the Minister, I wish to avail myself of the first opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
I had just said that my right hon. Friend would
consider all aspects and the views of many parties before he decides whether to allow the regulations to be altered."—[OFFLCIAL REPORT, 10th July 1961; Vol. 643, c. 15.]
They have not been altered and no application has been made to the Minister to alter them. The possibility of changes has long been notified to the industry, the first time being in 1952 and again in 1958; warning was given that these changes might take place. Undoubtedly, if the changes are made, some people will be unable to take the examination in the future who could have taken it in the past. But we are well aware of the views of the N.A.C.M. and the B.A.C.M. on this subject, and well aware of the views of the National Coal Board, and I shall be receiving a deputation from the N.A.C.M. and the B.A.C.M. on the subject.
The matter is fluid. The Minister will consider everybody's views before making up his mind whether these regulations should be altered to bring about the change contemplated, but he will naturally attach very great importance to a decision reached after long and careful consideration by the Mining Qualification Board, the members of which have great knowledge and experience of all aspects of the question. It is natural that he should pay great attention to the Board's views, but he will consider the views of all others who are ready and qualified to comment.

Mr. A. Roberts: Is not this an indictment of some of those holding very high positions in the nationalised industry, for instance, some general and production managers and some at Hobart House,


who came up by the way which I want to see preserved?

Mr. George: Not in the slightest. Those men in those positions would certainly have passed the new examinations. All they would be asked to do would be to get a simple qualification—membership of the Institution of Mining Engineers for the first class and the Higher National Certificate for the second class. I have no doubt that the men to whom the hon. Member refers would have passed those examinations and obtained first- and second-class certificates. But the matter is not settled. We are listening to all points of view. It is not beyond possibility that some changes will be made.
The hon. Member referred to planning the future. We are preparing to work two Lurgi plants, one in Scotland and one in England, and possibly there will be more—possibly a different type of plant. This method of gas production has been begun and it will be continued. There is a study group, and the National Coal Board and the Gas Council are represented on it, looking into the future of Lurgi to see whether the Lurgi system can produce gas more economically than it can be provided by liquid methane and to see whether it is the cheapest method of producing domestic and industrial gas. This is being thoroughly studied by experts, and if it proves to be so, then the future of Lurgi is assured.
The fall in consumption of coal by the gas industry is surprisingly small. Last year, it dropped by only 100,000 tons. There is no great swing away from coal to oil. But oil has an important part to play in the gas industry in meeting peak loads. The capital charge for an oil plant to meet peak loads is far less than the cost of a corresponding carbonisation plant. Oil has its part in gas production. Coal has its part in gas production, and other liquefied petroleum products may also have their part in the gas industry.
The gas industry is not a dying industry. It looks forward to an expanding future, contrary to the impression held in some quarters. I have been told that the industry expects to increase its output by about 25 per cent. in the next ten years. In that increase in output, if it

comes about, there is room for coal at its present level of consumption. There is room for oil, and there is room for other products required to make a cheap fuel. The hon. Gentleman himself said that we must have cheap fuel. We must not hold back the gas industry—which is fighting for its life—and not allow it to have allies which can enable it to produce a cheap therm and stop the falling away of its customers. That is what the gas industry is doing with a great deal of energy and ingenuity—seeking a cheap therm, using all the means it can find for that purpose, and not swinging quickly away from coal.
Electricity is a great ally of the coal industry and will remain so. Last year, 51 million tons of coal were taken by the electricity industry, 5 million tons more than the year before. Already this year, 2·2 million tons more than last year have been consumed, and the rise continues. In 1975, it is estimated that 125 million tons of coal equivalent will be required.
I come now to the answer to the point the hon. Member made about nuclear energy. The time will come, between the 1970s and the 1980s, when the coal industry will not be able to supply the needs of electricity. That will not be the time to think about the building of nuclear power plants. We must have the techniques perfected. We must have the stations built before then so that we can prove them one after another until we are in a position to have the best type of station built all over the country as required, when coal cannot meet the load. That is what we are doing—neither more nor less.
Plans for nuclear production have been twice altered, and now we are ordering at the rate of one new station a year, which means that, at any given time, from the planning to the completed stage, there will be five or six nuclear plants being built in this country, sufficient, we believe, to give the industry knowledge and experience in these majestic units and to keep our lead in world techniques in nuclear energy. We are doing neither more nor less than just what is necessary to keep us ahead.
I come now to the need to increase the demand for coal. Last year, we had to take 6½ million tons from stock in order to meet the demand. That meant that


output was 6 million tons too small to supply the country's needs. This year, if the demand is for 200 million tons, with output not likely to be higher than 190 million tons, there will be a 10 million tons gap to be met from stock. The stocks will not last for ever. If 200 million tons are to be consumed each year, there will be a gap, and it is an increase in output which we need. The mines need no protection. The gas industry does not need to be induced to use more coal. The electricity industry does not need to be induced to use more coal. It is being done already by the electricity industry anyway. The fact is that it is more coal which is needed, not less. The fear is of a shortage rather than a surplus. We do not need a plan to ensure that more coal is consumed. We need an efficient plan to produce more and cheaper coal. That is the position in the industry.
The hon. Gentleman was delighted that we had exported 5 million tons last year and looked forward to exporting 10 million tons in the near future. The hon. Member should know—it has been made public—that the National Coal Board is losing fairly heavily on its exports, and there is a limit to what the Board can lose in the export market. It is all very well to lose for a time if it can be seen that by losing that money, one can build up in the future to an economic price; but that is not evident. The opposition in Europe from Poland is serious. The Poles are prepared to sell at a price which is always less than the British price. The hon. Member should not, therefore, look forward with confidence to 10 million tons being exported. I hope that conditions will change and that we are able to export 10 million tons, but in present conditions that would be too heavy a burden for the Coal Board to bear financially.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we are in a difficult position because of the attitude of Poland in its desire to sell coal. As the Minister responsible in this House, does the hon. Gentleman know whether any representations are made on this matter through diplomatic channels? This question is often asked from the Coal Board and among miners.

Mr. George: The Ministry of Power does not make diplomatic representations, but I assume that the matter has been discussed seriously and often.

Mr. James Dempsey: Have the Government made any representations?

Mr. George: I speak only for the Ministry of Power, and we do not make diplomatic representations to other countries, but I am sure that the matter has not been neglected.
I share the hon. Member's admiration for the miners. I share with him the experience of having found them to be good people to work with, good comrades in trouble and good citizens. The challenge today is that the industry should make the best use of its men. Having laid out all the facilities and built fully mechanised new pits with excellent arrangements on the surface for handling and cleaning the coal, first-class transport arrangements underground, and well ventilated faces, the Coal Board cannot do more. It can arrange for the pits to be well managed—and they are not short of managers or under-managers; even though the examination may be changed, there are plenty of capable men.
What is wanted is that both sides should recognise the challenge. The future of coal depends upon efficiency. Efficiency depends to a great extent upon management, but it depends ultimately upon co-operation between management and men. That is the key to success. The need is for keen co-operation, and for the regaining by the mining industry of pride in itself in order to restore it to the place that it formerly enjoyed: confidence in the industry is not dying. It will be a great industry for the lifetime of all the people in the mining industry. That message should be put across by all those who have the chance to speak in mining areas. The industry has a great future if it becomes competitive, and it can become competitive if it enjoys co-operation between the two sides.
In reply to the point raised about Richard Thomas and Baldwins, the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) will not expect me to turn down statements already made on the subject. It has been stated in the


House of Commons from time to time that it is intended to denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins within the lifetime of this Parliament. That decision was made long before the present crisis came upon the country. It was made through the passing of a Bill in this House. It is the will of this House that the steel industry be denationalised, and the Government intend to carry on when the time is suitable to denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins. That is about all that I can say on the subject.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I think that what I said in my remarks was that this was a result of a Statute; that is, that it was the intention of the Government to get rid of the share capital to private investors. What I also said was that it was a most inappropriate moment to do that and that it should not be done until the crisis had passed and the reasons for it were fully understood. It would give an entirely wrong impression for the Government to adopt this doctrinaire attitude. I do not suggest that the Government should never do it, but it should certainly not do it until the crisis is over.

Mr. George: It has already been made clear that it will be done at the right moment.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also spoke of labour relations and efficiency in Richard Thomas and Baldwins as being the hall-mark of nationalisation. I give it one of the highest places in the industry, but the labour relations throughout the steel industry are very good. When Richard Thomas and Baldwins gets relief from nationalisation it will be joining the larger and highly efficient private sector.

Orders of the Day — HONG KONG (FOOD PARCELS)

12.17 a.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I want to switch to a very different subject from that which we have just been discussing, but it is a matter on which I should like to get some enlightenment from the Colonial Office. I feel that this is certainly needed, because the first series of Questions which I put down last April on

the subject brought the reply that no fewer than 879,000 food parcels were sent in 1959 from Hong Kong to the mainland of China. This figure had jumped to 3,700,000 in 1960, while for the first three months of 1961, there were 2,600,000, which means that if the traffic continued at the same rates, some 10,400,000 parcels would go this year.
I then got into touch with our own Post Office here and found that the figure for parcels of the same size—about 2 lbs. in weight—during the October to December period, that is the Christmas period, in 1960 by both surface and air transport to and from overseas countries, including those parcels passing through the United Kingdom and which were paid for at the minimum rates, was only 939,000. That is against a possible 10,400,000 going from Hong Kong to the mainland of China in this present year.
I concluded that there must be something fantastic about the posting of these particular Hong Kong parcels and also some very definite reason for it. I asked myself whether I should seek to obtain information from the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office. The Foreign Office has responsibility in the sense that it is represented in Pekin, but we also know that its Embassy members are allowed to travel only where the Chinese Government will permit them to go.
In Hong Kong there are about 3 million people who are, to all intents and purposes, Chinese. They all have relations on the mainland, and many go backwards and forwards and are tremendously knowledgeable about what goes on. I asked myself again whether it was just possible that the Colonial Office might not be allowed by the Foreign Office to tell us very much of what was going on.
I felt it to be more than possible in view of the fact that I had myself frequently been in the Far East since the war, and I do know that if the Foreign Office had taken the advice of the Colonial Office in the first few years immediately after the last war we might not be in the present difficult position we are in, in regard to China. Colonial Office advice one saw and heard in Hong Kong was quite different from what one got in Nanking from our embassy there in those days. Another thing which


worried one was the lack of contact between the Board of Trade very often and the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office.
I can well remember in the days of the Socialist Government from 1945 to 1950 being myself sent for one day by the then President of the Board of Trade who asked me some questions about something going on in Japan. I said, "Why ask me these questions?" "Oh, well, because you have quite recently come back from Japan and know much more about it than I do,"was the reply. I said, "Why not get in touch with the Ambassador and discuss it with him?" "That," was the reply, "would take so long—to send a lot of telegrams." I said, "What do you mean by that? The Ambassador is here in London. I saw him only yesterday." "Oh," said the President of the Board of Trade, "then he has come over presumably to discuss something with the Foreign Office, but that does not at all mean that he is necessarily going to come to see me, because we are not always informed about what goes on in different Departments".
Therefore, I am a bit worried about whether Colonial Office advice is being taken by the Foreign Office in regard to the difficult conditions in China today and whether, indeed, the Colonial Office is consulted on that subject at all. It is because of that that I want to raise the matter this evening.
We know a certain amount of what is going on in China, about the famine conditions in that country at the present moment. Some of the few figures I have been able to get hold of refer to the agricultural co-operative movement which started in China in 1954. In that year official figures given by the Communist papers show that there were affected by what are called "national calamities" about 260 million mou. A mou is, gather, about 0·16 of an acre. I shall not bother the House by giving it the figures from then on each year, but they gradually increased until in 1958 there were 470 million mou affected, in 1959, 650 million, and in 1960, last year, there were 900 million mou affected by "national calamities." That is a figure admitted by the Communists. That is presumably bad enough, but then one hears of the rumours of what is going

on about food rationing in China today. Statements sent out show that:
Beginning from December, 1960, a substitute of yam leaves rice husk and yams chopped and mixed together was issued as part of the staple food ration. Shortages even more acute are felt in supplementary foods such as vegetables, meat, edible oil and sugar as well as in fuels.
I ask the House to remember those items because there is something I want to say in a minute or two about them. The statement I have quoted goes on:
People were forced to fill their stomachs with wild game, wild plants, even earthworms, field mice and frogs. Such long periods of malnutrition have caused widespread tuberculosis, liver diseases, and dropsy, seriously affecting the health of the younger generation.
These are conditions which are going on at the moment on the mainland of China. We know that, but it is difficult to get information from there and the Press are not able to find out what they want to know about it, because these things are not mentioned.
Yet when I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State as far back as 16th March
how much rice and other foodstuffs have been imported into or passed through Hong Kong coming from China since the famine conditions started on the Chinese mainland
he replied:
Imports of rice, frozen meat and poultry, fresh fruit and soya beans in the last four months showed no significant changes from imports in the same period in 1959–60. There has, however, been a noticeable falling off in imports of fresh meat and poultry, eggs, fish and fresh vegetables."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 1730.]
I asked a supplementary question and I want to ask it again. Would it not be the duty of the people in Hong Kong to refuse or to try to refuse to take those exports from the mainland of China in order that it might be possible for the people on the mainland of China to eat them themselves?
If, as I quoted earlier, there is such a terrible shortage of food in China now, it is rather unfair that we should be taking materials out of China into Hong Kong. Is it not the duty of the Hong Kong Government and of the Colonial Office to do something much more useful by way of organising the sending of foodstuffs into China and to make sure that the millions of parcels which are sent there eventually reach their right destination? Do we know anything about their


destination once they leave Hong Kong? My hon. Friend, in an Answer, said that negotiations were in progress with the Chinese postal service on the mainland.
Formosans are sending as much food as they possibly can to people on the mainland who are supposed to be their bitterest enemies. They feel that they must help their own fellow-Chinese on the mainland and they send over vast numbers of balloons to which food is attached and which can travel as much as 1,000 miles. The people of Hong Kong are spending vast sums of money on sending parcels, as can be imagined when the cost of 10 million parcels is compared, for example, with the sum spent on the parcel post at Christmas time in this country.
Should not the Hong Kong Government be doing something about this instead of leaving it to private citizens? Should not the Red Cross in Switzerland be approached and some international movement organised to deal with this problem? The House is about to rise for three months. We should not go away leaving the impression among people in the Far East that even if we know something about conditions on the Chinese mainland we could not care less about what is happening there. We should do something to help these 600 million people who presumably are starving.

12.27 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling), with his deep and long knowledge of the Far East, should have raised this question. In a way, much of what he has said has been reminiscent of the duels which he has fought with various Government Departments. Liaison between the Colonial Office, the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade is in these as in other matters a harmonious process which I am sure achieves in nearly every case the desired result.
My hon. Friend has raised various questions and has made statements about the food situation in China. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the extent of the food problem in Communist China. Undoubtedly

there has been a series of bad harvests and perhaps there has been mismanagement. There is no question that the Chinese mainland is short of food. Indeed, if the Chinese on the mainland had not been short of food they would not have been spending their money on heavy grain purchases from Canada and Australia. But reports of a state of famine which my hon. Friend suggested are, as far as I am concerned, uncorroborated.
My hon. Friend is suggesting that we should take greater steps as a Government, and that the people and Government of Hong Kong should take greater steps, to offer relief in this undoubted food shortage on the Chinese mainland.
I must point out that various private organisations have made inquiries about sending food, and some have sent food packages, but these have been returned by the Chinese authorities with the clearest indication that they are quite unacceptable. If it is the policy of the Chinese Communist Government to refuse relief supplies, there is nothing that Her Majesty's Government or the Hong Kong Government can do about that.
My hon. Friend made reference to vast supplies which are going from Formosa into the Communist mainland. I understand from him that these are being dispatched by balloon. While there is, of course, a great difference between living in an island like Formosa and living contiguous to the mainland, I think his balloon theory is hardly applicable to the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Teeling: The balloons, I understand, have been sent from Quemoy, which is much nearer—only three miles off the mainland.

Mr. Fraser: It is not part of the Chinese mainland, whereas a large part of the territory of Hong Kong—the New Territories—is part of the mainland. What is being done, as my hon. Friend has said, and what the people of Hong Kong are doing, is sending in very large quantities of help to their relations and others in China. The number of parcels sent rose to a peak in February this year of 3,700,000, but since then it has declined; in June it was about 1,100,000 and in July just under 1 million.
Apart from this parcels service, there are three other ways of conveying food to people in China. Those who are visiting China can, of course, take food. Shops in Hong Kong make up parcels of food to dispatch to the Chinese mainland. Lastly, there is a system by which a local firm has set up a food depot in Canton where the food is shipped in bulk and from there delivered. I am informed that deliveries are accurate and that deliveries by the Chinese Government or under the auspices of the Chinese Government fulfil all the normal expectations of delivery. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that in all matters connected with trade the Chinese are most punctilious and accurate, whether they be Communist or not.
I should like to say one or two words in conclusion on these very interesting points raised by my hon. Friend—

Mr. James Dempsey: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of packages of food being seat to the mainland and returned, which one can understand, does he not think that a Government which made representations with the object of relieving some of the hunger and poverty on the mainland might receive a somewhat different reception from that accorded to private donors of packages?

Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. That is an interesting point, but I have tried to demonstrate that the offers of assistance made to China from outside, from Governments and others, have been rejected by the Chinese Government. As I said, the Chinese Government are purchasing large quantities of wheat and other commodities abroad, from Canada and, I think, Australia.
But the help which Hong Kong is giving to China is not by any means limited to this large quantity of parcels sent by people to their relations. As my hon. Friend knows, the population of Hong Kong has risen from a pre-war figure of about 1½ million to well over 3 million in about fifteen years. There is a shortage of land and great problems of water and employment. But Hong Kong has succeeded in absorbing over 1 million refugees from Communist China. Indeed, this is the greatest operation of help by a small community to

the refugees of the world—the greatest example there is today.
There is, of course, a more difficult position today. There is a land shortage in Hong Kong. There are employment difficulties and many other problems. Since 1956, we have had to impose some control on immigration. The frontier is over 400 miles long, and there are some 230 islands. Policing of all this territory is difficult. Nevertheless we are trying to control immigration, both in the interests of those already living in Hong Kong and those coming in.
The achievements of the people and Government of Hong Kong are remarkable. As my hon. Friend and other hon. Members know, there is a system by which the Social Welfare Department provides cooked meals for more than 10,000 people every day. There is a policy of absorbing those who come in into the community of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Government have built, since 1954, homes for about 400,000 people at a capital cost of over £10 million. They are at present building accommodation for the resettlement of 80,000 to 100,000 people a year.
The education programme is most impressive. In this comparatively small community over 500,000 people were receiving education last year, ranging from kindergarten to university. If those achievements could have been copied in other areas of the world, it would mean that the largest and most difficult problem of education in the world as a whole would easily and overwhelmingly have been overcome.
Some of my hon. Friends opposite are apt to attack the capitalist system in Hong Kong. I must say, however, that in investment in social welfare the example of Hong Kong is unrivalled throughout the world. In the last ten years, primary school places have been increased by 300,000 and secondary school places by over 50,000. One-sixth of the Government's income is spent on education. There is a mass of figures to show the success of this extraordinary and, in a way, most remarkable of all our Colonies and the contribution it is making to the problem of the refugees from Communist China and to the welfare of the Chinese population of Hong Kong. Hong Kong is an example, and


a shining one, to the world of what can be achieved in this day and age.

Mr. Teeling: I never suggested that Hong Kong was not playing its part. I was trying to say that, with this wonderful achievement, would not it be possible for Hong Kong to ask the British Government to do quite a bit more?

Mr. Fraser: The Hong Kong Government are not only able to deal with their own problems of administration but are also extremely well informed in the advice which they tender to this country. They have some of the wisdom of the East, which I am sure I am trying to absorb, and the actions they propose are in the interests of their own people and of their friends in China.

Orders of the Day — IMMIGRATION

12.40 a.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the servants of the House for raising the question of immigration at so late an hour. I would not do so if I were not convinced that this is the most important and most difficult domestic problem facing this country at the present time
I well understand that I cannot ask for legislation, but I would ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to urge his right hon. Friend to have immediate and urgent consultation with all the Commonwealth Governments in order to secure their co-operation for some check on immigration into this country from overseas. That is the basis of the plea that I want to make to him.
As my hon and learned Friend knows quite well, India and Pakistan have until recently exercised some control over prospective immigrants into the United Kingdom from their countries I understand that, at the same time, the British Government asked the West Indian Government to exercise similar control, but that, unfortunately, that co-operation was refused. The Indian and Pakistan Governments now complain, and I think quite reasonably, that they should be asked to exercise self-control while the West Indians refuse to do the same I think that is a very fair complaint to make.
The figures of immigrants into this country for the first six months of this year are, I think, both alarming and depressing. I would remind the House, to take the West Indies first, that in 1959 the number of immigrants coming to this country amounted to 16,400. Last year there was a jump to 50,000, a startling and frightening increase. But that is only part of the story, for, in the first six months of 1960, 16,400 West Indian immigrants came to this country.
In the first six months of this year the number jumped to 29,800, and no one looking at the figures can but be alarmed at the social complications and risks which lie behind them. They really mean that a new West Indian city as big as Bath and Colchester could be put on the map of England each year for ever unless some form of control is exercised. That, I think we would all agree, it would be quite impossible to allow to go on indefinitely.
I think that my hon. and learned Friend would agree that sheer weight of numbers makes restriction inevitable some day, and I believe that the sooner that day arrives the better both for us and for our friends overseas. But difficult and frightening as are the figures of immigrants from the West Indies they pale into insignificance compared with the figures for the first six months from India and Pakistan. They are really terrifying in their significance.
In the first six months of this year, the number of immigrants coming from India was 8.850 compared with only 2,400 in the first six months of last year. Apart from Pakistan, the number was 7,850 compared with just over 100, so that from the sub-continent of India no less than 16,700 immigrants arrived in this country in the first six months of this year compared with 2,500 during the same six months of last year.
I believe that this is a direct result of the breakdown of the co-operation that we enjoyed from the Indian and Pakistan Governments, and I want to know if it is possible to get that co-operation restored once again.
I remind my hon. and learned Friend that the West Indian population is about 3¼ million. Their annual population increase is estimated to be about 50,000 or 60,000. No one knows exactly. All


these people naturally want to come to the United Kingdom, because the standard of living here is so very much higher than that in their own country. I can understand that, and if I were a West Indian I should want to go where the standard of living was so much higher, if I could get there. The population of India and Pakistan is over 500 million. Their annual increase in population is about 7 million. It is obviously utterly impossible for this country to absorb such an enormous number year by year. Yet they have just the same right to come to this country as the people of the West Indies.
If the people of the West Indies have a right as British citizens to come to England to settle, so have the Indians and Pakistanis. Indeed, they have a greater right, because if poverty is the justification for people moving from the West Indies to this country it would drive the people from the sub-continent of India here ten times quicker. The income per capita in 1959 has been calculated as follows: Pakistan, £19; India, £24; Jamaica, £132; Trinidad, £190. The standard of living in Trinidad is ten times higher than that in Pakistan. Therefore, if it were a right to come because of poverty the people of Pakistan have ten times more right to come to this country than the people of the West Indies. If we continue to receive West Indians without limit, I can see no justification whatsoever for trying to put any bar on Indians and Pakistanis, whose need is so much greater.
Because of the sheer weight of these numbers something must be done quickly, or there will be such tragedies as will frighten most of us. I will give my hon. and learned Friend one other figure. Many of the peoples of Africa are being given their political freedom. They have the same comparable rights to come to this country as British citizens. Nigeria has a population of over 30 million. That is ten times the population of the West Indies. If the West Indies are entitled to send their surplus population—60,000—here, the Nigerians would be entitled to send over 1 million every year. The position has obviously reached a preposterous state, and something must be done.
I know that some people will say that I say this because I am colour-conscious. This is not true. If the West Indians'

skins were as white as snow, it would still be necessary to control the number coming into this country because of the social consequences that will arise from such a great influx of people. We have reached the stage when we cannot absorb them at the rate at which they are coming.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not desire to convey the impression that he is colour-conscious or preaching racialism. Can he tell me why he has not attempted in his speech to deal with other problems of immigration, in some cases not involving British subjects? Examples are immigration of Southern Irish people, Cypriots and others. Why is he making his case solely on the question of coloured immigration and not on the question of immigration as a whole?

Sir C. Osborne: I have given way, but it is rather late and we must press on.

Mr. Loughlin: It does not matter. We have all night.

Sir C. Osborne: I will make my speech and present my case in my own way, as I am entitled to. The problem is one of sheer numbers and the difficulty of absorbing—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Sheer colour.

Sir C. Osborne: Of course, colour adds to the problem, but even if their faces were whiter than any in the country, the problem would still remain. Those who deal with housing problems and with hospitals, and those who read what the B.M.A. said recently about the incidence of certain diseases amongst the immigrants, must be startled, and in some cases frightened, by the problems which are being created.
I want to be very careful about this. There is one other aspect which is vital to us as a nation. The arrival here of large numbers of immigrants from India and Pakistan could give rise to a religious problem. I wish to speak carefully and advisedly about this subject. All men and all nations are entitled to their ways and views. I want to be careful not to give offence on this issue.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman is giving offence now.

Sir C. Osborne: I have said nothing yet. In The Times of Monday of this week there was this report. Under the headline "Church made into Sikh temple. Vicar's reference to 'heathen rites'", it says:
After six hours of hymns and prayer and holy readings, what is thought to be the largest Sikh temple in Europe was opened here today. The decision to convert a Congregational church into a Sikh place of worship has not been welcomed by everybody in this town.
That is what The Times, a responsible newspaper, said. The report continues:
Here in Smethwick we see a building in our main street that for a very long time has been used for Christian worship and work being renovated, decorated, and adapted as a temple for the black people to preach what we have always spoken of as heathen rites', writes the Rev. J. H. Chamberlain, Vicar of St. Michael and All Angels, Smethwick, in his parish magazine. 'Yet how many people are at all worried about Christian England so going into reverse? …What hope have we in our materialistic and decaying Christian England of converting the heathen in our midst?'".
That is the question posed in The Times, the most serious newspaper in the country. To my mind this is the most serious problem emerging from this unrestrained immigration. I wonder what my hon. Friends among the Congregationalists think about this happening in Smethwick?
If unlimited immigration is allowed for ever and the numbers grow as the means of transport is perfected, the conversion of our so-called Christian civilisation will be towards what we always term a heathen form of worship, and more and more of our churches will be used for the purpose to which I have referred. England is in danger of being no longer even nominally a Christian country.

Mr. Loughlin: Nonsense.

Sir C. Osborne: I am very concerned about this. If I could speak to my friends in the churches, I would say that the sooner they bring back their foreign missions and concentrate on saving their home bases, the better it will be for the Christian religion in this country. [Laughter.] This is the development. Hon. Members may laugh, but I have shown that the figures from India and Pakistan in the first six months of this

year are over 16,500 against 2,500 last year. These figures have increased, because the co-operation which we enjoyed with the Indian and Pakistan Governments in checking immigration to this country has broken down. If that breakdown continues and there is no restraint, and if we get the same proportion of the population from India and Pakistan to this country that we have been getting from the West Indies, we shall have millions coming here every year. To me that is no laughing matter. I think it the most serious problem with which we have been faced for a long time.
I should like to give another quotation from another responsible newspaper, the Economist. On 24th June it stated:
No doubt it will be said that permits"—
that is work permits—
would always be granted liberally for Commonwealth citizens, at any rate, in areas that are not already 'overcrowded with immigrants'"—
I wish to emphasise this—
and especially for jobs for which Englishmen find themselves increasingly too fastidious;".
That is a nice word. We are to bring coloured people in to do jobs which we are too fastidious to do.
already public transport undertakings, hospitals and some local authority services could ill do without the West Indians who perform unsavoury or unpopular duties. But if a work permit system is formalised, the logical consequence of it could be job-reservation, differential wages, less favourable treatment of Commonwealth than of European citizens if Britain joins the common market, and all sorts of problems when the particular jobs for which new immigrants have been given work permits run out.
I want to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether the coloured people are being brought to this country, as the Economist says, to do the unsavoury and dirty jobs that we are not prepared to do? Does my hon. and learned Friend think that their children will do the same sort of jobs? Or are we to have a constant stream of new immigrants to do the jobs that we are not prepared to do? That is the problem. Obviously the coloured people who come here and educate their children will not allow their children to be treated as second-class citizens and made to do the dirty work.
This was the attitude taken by the Romans in the third century. They


brought people in from over the frontiers to do their dirty work and to do their fighting, as hon. Members have suggested that we should get the black people to fight for us because we are not prepared to do the fighting ourselves. We are going the same way as the Romans went.
I have received thousands of letters from people in all parts of the country and representing all parties. There is a genuine fear about the social consequences of unlimited immigration—colour or no colour—whatever the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies may think about it; and I can tell him pretty straight that one day he will alter his mind on the subject.
There is a genuine fear that the Government are sitting on a powder keg and that unless they act it will one day blow up with the most violent consequences. If my right hon. and learned Friend wishes, I will willingly send him, as homework, at least a thousand letters from various parts of the country to support what I have said. There is a feeling that the Government have been terribly weak, too timid to make up their own minds and afraid of giving offence to people overseas.
I plead with him, as I have pleaded with various occupants of the Home Office for the last ten years, to contact again the Governments overseas and to try to get their co-operation to help us solve this problem before we have to insist on some control. I do not think it unreasonable that English people should say that in their own country they want their own way of life and they want their rights safeguarding—and they want it now. I beg of my right hon. and learned Friend that he should take up the matter with the Home Secretary and ask for some action as quickly as possible.

1.3 a.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I wish to make a very short but factual contribution to the debate. Those of us who have spoken on this problem of immigrants have often been accused of wishing to apply a colour bar, and that accusation has been made in this debate. We have denied it and have explained that we are concerned not so much with the colour as with the habits and codes of conduct of the people who come into this country from

the Commonwealth. That is the point which I wish to emphasise.
Recently I put a Question to the Minister of Health asking him what effect immigration had had on the incidence of gonorrhoea since 1952. The reply was "About a half." In other words, the Ministry admits that although the immigrants were only an insignificant proportion of the total population of the country, they were responsible for roughly 50 per cent. of the increase in this serious disease since 1952. Even so, according to my information, that is an under-estimate. I refer hon. Members to the British Medical Journal of 22nd July, 1961, which contains an article headed "Venereal Diseases in Immigrants and Adolescents." This article refers to a recent study by the British Co-operative Clinical Group under the auspices of the Medical Society for the Study of Venereal Diseases.
The review was comprehensive; 84 clinics in England and Wales and three in Scotland were able to provide complete information from 1952, 1954, and 1958; and 18 other clinics gave partial information for 1958. It stated that during the period 1954–58 the numbers of cases of gonorrhoea at all the clinics of England and Wales rose by 60 per cent. for males and 54 per cent. for females. The numbers taken were 15,387 attacks on men and 3,054 attacks on women during 1958. All these patients attended clinics in England and Wales, and they represented 67·8 per cent. of the national total of cases in males and 55·6 per cent. of the total in females.
This is the significant point. Of the men 51·5 per cent. were born in the United Kingdom, 24 per cent. in the West Indies and 24·5 per cent. in other countries. Thus, of the men who were attacked by gonorrhoea in 1958 nearly 50 per cent. were immigrants, although they probably represented only 1 per cent. of the population. The report says that
it appeared that 54·9 per cent. of the increase in gonorrhoea in males between 1952 and 1958 was attributable to men from the West Indies.
It goes on to say that, assuming that of the 115,000 immigrants from the West Indies in 1958 100.000 were men and 15.000 were women,
it was calculated that the known incidence of gonorrhoea per annum in West Indian men was 36·9 per thousand


as compared with 1·1 per thousand among people of similar age who were indigenous subjects of the United Kingdom. The incidence was thirty-five times greater among West Indian immigrant men than among indigenous subjects of the United Kingdom. A similar proportion applies to women.
The figures I have given relate to the year 1958, when the number of immigrants from the West Indies was calculated to be 115,000. The number has doubled in the meantime. It is quite clear that this great increase in the incidence of gonorrhoea, almost entirely attributable to immigrants from the West Indies and other countries, represents a serious danger to the health of this country. That emphasises more than any other fact put before the House the need to deal urgently with the problem.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: At this hour of the morning, I shall not seek to make a long speech, but I think that a view contrary to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) should be expressed. My hon. Friend is, if I may say so, predictable. He raises this matter of Commonwealth immigration in and out of season, generally out of season even from his own point of view. Whenever he asks a Question in the House he fills a plane load from the West Indies, and when he makes a speech he fills a boat load because people are anxious to get here before the Government accept his view and shut the door in their faces.
My hon. Friend is predictable also in what he says. No matter how much he may deny it, he always takes a racial line on this issue. His plea is a little like Hitler's—let us preserve the purity of the British race. Colour is his theme, and colour is his prejudice. Hon. Members talk of social strains and stresses. What they really mean is colour prejudice. Let us at least recognise this attitude for that it is. It is not objectionable from my hon. Friend's point of view. He is entitled to his prejudices, as we all are. Nevertheless, I believe that it is a foolish prejudice, a short-sighted prejudice, and a very insular prejudice in the modern world and in the modern Commonwealth as it now is, of which we are still the centre.
It is estimated that there are now 350,000 coloured people living in Britain. This is much less than 1 per cent. of our population; it is not much over one half of 1 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend that the most worrying feature of the trend of immigration in the last year or two is not so much the actual numbers coming in from the West Indies as the potential number who might Dome in from India and Pakistan. The Asian figures, which were held by agreement for some time, are now rising very rapidly. As my hon. Friend says, there were about 8,000 immigrants from each of India and Pakistan in the first six months of this year, and millions more could come if they wished. They have a perfect right to come, as he said. I ask my West Indian friends to recognise this point. West Indians say that they have a right to come, and so they have, but so, of course, have the teeming millions of India and Pakistan. There is a limit, obviously, to the numbers whom we can absorb—

Sir C. Osborne: My hon. Friend said that it was prejudice on my part.

Mr. Fisher: I did not interrupt my hon. Friend perhaps he will not interrupt me.
I would not say that the right is absolute, nor that it is indefinite for ever, or unlimited, but I do say that we should not restrict unless and until we have to. In my view, Commonwealth citizens should be allowed to come here as long as there are jobs for them to fill—because that is why they come. They come here for work and for no other reason. Where would London Transport be but for the West Indian immigrant? It would be at a standstill.
Consider, too, which we must, the position in the West Indies. We have a responsibility there and one cannot look at this problem without being conscious of that responsibility. The West Indies have an explosive problem of over-population and unemployment. Emigration is the only safety valve, and Britain is the only country to which they can emigrate. Thirty thousand people came here last year from Jamaica alone, because they had no work at home. That was the only reason why they came.
The capital cost of providing work for 30,000 people in Jamaica is £60 million. 'Where is that sort of money to come from? Certainly, it will not come from private enterprise, which invests only for profit. I make no complaint of that, but it is a fact. The money is certainly not coming from Her Majesty's Government, who recently have had to cut down aid to African Colonies, in particular to Tanganyika, which needs it desperately, to save the West Indian Conference in London and give a little money to the poorer and smaller Caribbean islands. We do not have unlimited funds to provide £60 million a year to employ the Jamaicans in Jamaica.
With 20 per cent. unemployed, the unemployment problem in Jamaica is, as I said, an explosive one. Where there is severe unemployment of those dimensions, there is, to quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister nearly twenty-five years ago,
inflammable social material at the mercy of the man with a political match to ignite it.
There are plenty of men with political matches in the Caribbean, and some of them would not stop at arson. These are our Colonies for which we are directly responsible. We have a responsibility too, of course, to the Commonwealth as a whole which we cannot possibly overlook. If, by introducing restrictive legislation, we deliberately run away from the colour issue, which my hon. Friend has raised this evening, we in Britain should be setting a very poor example to East and Central Africa. These are some at least of the considerations which should weigh with hon. Members and should certainly weigh with the Government before they, by their actions here, deliberately ignite a fire that they may later be unable to quench.

1.14 a.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) gave some alarming figures for the immigration into this country from various parts of the Commonwealth. As I see it, the problem is between the Commonwealth, which up to now has had an unrestricted right for its people to enter this country, and our own people and our own housing capabilities.
None of us would deny that these people from the Commonwealth are doing most useful jobs of work, for instance in the transport system of London, as has been mentioned. That is a classic illustration of a service which would probably come to a standstill but for this particular labour force. But we must look at this matter in a wider sense. Many hon. Members have the problem in their own constituencies, and in my own division it expresses itself as a problem of housing. There are people who have waited for years to be housed, only to find that an immigrant who has just come to this country gets a house. That is probably to some extent due to the ingenuity of the immigrant, but the fact that he is living in the area has given rise, and does give rise, to a considerable inter-racial feeling.
Until seven years ago—probably only five years ago—there was no racial feeling whatever. Where there is now it may be looked upon as a question of jealousy between those with, and those without, accommodation; but the fact is that this feeling exists. In an era of full employment there is no jealousy about jobs, but there is jealousy when it comes to accommodation and overcrowding. Most of the immigrants go into the large cities which are already overcrowded, and that is where the problem lies. It is not so much a racial problem, although because a person is coloured he or she is more conspicuous.
In Wandsworth very few families who are coloured have ever been rehoused by the local authority. I have been into this matter very carefully and it is a fact that the coloured person who is rehoused is conspicuous. However that fact does not provide an answer as to what we are to do about this influx of immigrants. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has said that there may come a time when we have to put a limit on the number of people entering this country. One hon. Member mentioned the Irish, but that immigration, I think, is a result of an agreement made some time ago and it is a matter which we should find extremely difficult to control. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and it would be very difficult, physically, to check immigration from that country, whether desirable or not.

Mr. Loughlin: Being of Southern Irish extraction, I used the Irish as an illustration and nothing else.

Dr. Glyn: I am sure we all feel that Irish ancestry is part of many people. I was using the point just by way of illustrating the practical difficulties involved.
Nor can we eliminate the question of political asylum, although it is only a tiny part of the total immigration into this country; nor should we like to limit the number of students coming into this country, for we hope that when students from the Commonwealth or, in fact, any other part of the world go from here they take some part of what we have been able to offer them. We know why many of our Commonwealth brethren come to this country. It is purely a question of the standard of living. The answer is to raise the standard of living in their own countries, but that is part of an expensive and long-term policy.
The great difficulty, as far I can see, is this tremendous housing shortage in this country. We in the cities are already overcrowded. The coloured immigrants—I am going to use the word quite frankly—do come in, and, poor things, they cannot find any other accommodation and they live in crowded conditions. Nevertheless, however they live, they accentuate the problem because they are taking up accommodation which many of our own people, who have been on housing waiting lists, feel they themselves should have. I would point out to my hon. and learned Friend that perhaps the time may have come when we find that in the cities we really cannot absorb them—from the housing point of view. I leave aside the question of jobs, because there are plenty of jobs.
We may be spoiling inter-racial relations in this country by virtue of overcrowding. I myself do everything I possibly can to foster good relations between those of our Commonwealth brethren already in this country and our own people, and I have done everything that is possible in my own division to that end, but I still feel that there is certainly a case for very rationally looking at this purely and simply from the point of view of shortage of accommodation in the cities and a breakdown of relations which is occurring as the result of overcrowding.

Orders of the Day — SOUTHERN CAMEROONS

1.21 a.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the latter stages of this debate I should like to apologise to the Minister and to the House and its officers for helping to keep them up so very late, but I can at least make this excuse, that the matter I want to raise seems to me to be a very important matter involving the credit of the Government, and it is literally a matter which cannot wait till after the Parliamentary Recess. On 1st October, before Parliament will resume again, the latest of the Territories for which we in this country have responsibility will have reached the stage of independence. I am referring to the Southern Cameroons. Normally, the point of reaching independence is a matter for congratulation and celebration, but I think that it must be frankly said that in this case the Southern Cameroons is approaching conditions of full independence in circumstances of singular obscurity and considerable peril.

Major Sir Frank Markham: On a point of order. I was under the impression, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we were debating immigration. We have, I find, been wafted into a debate on the Cameroons. Surely we have the right or the privilege of a Ministerial reply to the previous debate on immigration before going on to the Cameroons?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): We are on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) was the only one who got up when the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) sat down.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Further to that point of order. I say with great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that before you came into the Chair we had followed the procedure that once a matter had been discussed there was a reply from the Government Front Bench. This is the first departure, during the whole of this debate. I wonder whether it would be possible to have a reply to the debate on the previous subject immediately after my hon.


Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomas) has sat down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Dundee, East because he was the only Member who got up. Whether the Minister intended to reply or not, I do not know.

Sir F. Markham: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought we were continuing the debate on immigration. I was vastly surprised to find we had switched to another subject before we had had a Ministerial reply.

Sir Cyril Osborne: Where has the Minister gone?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may be surprised, but that is the fact.

Mr. Thomson: I rose because nobody rose on my side of the House to carry on the debate.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: On a point of order. I apologise to the hon. Member for interrupting him. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has now returned to the Chamber, and as, I think, he was prepared to give a reply to the debate on the previous subject—he certainly brought in some notes on the previous occasion—I think honestly, although I do not share the views of my hon. Friends who raised the subject, I think this is—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member raising a point of order? The Minister can speak later if he wishes.

Sir F. Markham: The point is that the House would like to hear the Minister now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) was the only Member to rise.

Sir C. Osborne: With due respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I do not wish to cause trouble, may I point out that Mr. Speaker said at the outset that subjects for debate should be taken in a certain order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I called the only hon. Member who rose. I could do nothing else. Mr. Thomson.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no point of order.

Sir C. Osborne: With great respect, how can you say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that there is no point of order when I have not yet made it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No point of order can arise at this stage.

Mr. Fisher: On a point of order. One of my hon. Friends below the Gangway rose at the same time as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and I saw him do so.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Would it be in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for me to move, "That the debate be now adjourned", so that we may have some statement of the Government's intention on this matter?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I could not accept that.

Mr. Willey: I consider this procedure somewhat confusing. I know that we are on Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill but it seems quite pointless that we should try to make the debate orderly by agreeing on the sequence of subjects to be discussed if this is not followed from the Government Front Bench. It is quite wrong to ask hon. Members generally to discipline themselves and raise matters in such order if the Government are not going to deal with the subjects as they are raised by the arrangemtnt which we have made.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not my responsibility whether the Minister rose or not. The hon. Member for Dundee, East rose and I called him.

Dr. Alan Glyn: On a further point of order. I understood that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) was rising to take part in the debate on immigration.

Sir C. Osborne: So did I.

Dr. Glyn: That is why some of my hon. Friends did not rise.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Thomson: To make my own position clear, may I say that if the Minister wishes to make a statement in answer to his hon. Friends I have no desire to


stand in his way? I rose because the Minister did not rise and it is for that reason I assume that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, called me.
As I was saying, I was anxious to raise with the Government the situation in the Southern Cameroons. As the House will know, this is a Territory for which we operate a trusteeship under the United Nations. The Southern Cameroons chose in a United Nations plebiscite on 11th February of this year to join with the Cameroun Republic, a former French Territory. The United Nations in its wisdom decided that the union between the Southern Cameroons and the Cameroun Republic should take place on 1st October this year. This is a very short period indeed even in the most favourable circumstances but the circumstances here, as the Minister will agree, are in many ways anything but favourable.
The problem of uniting these two territories would in any event be difficult. They are two territories of completely different cultures, with different political systems, the one English-speaking and the other French-speaking in the language of its administration. There are extremely complex problems in bringing these two countries together within one national State. So far as I can discover, no serious work has been done on joining these countries and getting down to the hard problems of bringing them together. So far only a number of very general declarations have been made about the kind of framework that might be proposed. In these circumstances a potentially very dangerous situation has arisen.
I bring the matter before the House tonight for three reasons; first, out of concern for the safety of our own nationals in the Southern Cameroons and because I think the House is entitled to have a statement from the Government on this vitally important matter; secondly, out of a regard for the welfare of the inhabitants of the territory, for which we have been responsible ever since the First World War and whose wishes we would like to see fulfilled so far as we possibly can; and, thirdly, because if anything goes wrong in the Southern Cameroons on and after 1st October—we pray that it will not—the

British Government and the British people will get the blame for it. I therefore raise the matter because we in this House are concerned with the good name and reputation of the Government in administering this kind of trusteeship territory.
It may be suggested that I am painting an unusually gloomy picture of foreboding for the future of the Southern Cameroons. If that is so, I should like to produce evidence for expressing these views. I can conveniently do it from two sources—The Times and a letter which I received today from a correspondent in the Southern Cameroons.
In a recent issue The Times drew attention to the anxieties in the Cameroons. It said, among other things, that
When British rule in the Southern Cameroons ceases on October 1, a situation is likely to develop which could be fraught with danger.
It went on to state that
Expatriate civil servants, of whom there are about 130 in the territory, are loth to remain there after independence unless their safety can be assured.… A proposed aid mission has had to be shelved because there will be no civil servants to administer it.
That is a very serious situation indeed. It also states that:
weapons licences are being issued to the senior staff of commercial firms to enable them to defend their own estates.… As a further precaution, the British Government plan to have a naval vessel in the vicinity for some weeks after October 1.
When The Times reports in these terms I think there is reasonable cause for anxiety.
I also have here a letter from the Southern Cameroons written by one of our citizens who has been there for some time. I do not wish to embarrass him by quoting his name, and I am not, of course, suggesting that all the things that he says would necessarily be found on investigation to be factually true, because he is an ordinary citizen who is simply giving his honest impressions of what he has been told by the authorities in the Southern Cameroons about what the situation is. The letter is dated 2nd July, and I ask the Minister to note what he says:
… the latest development is that the British Government have now decided to withdraw her interests from the territory completely—more or less in disgust and because of heavier and more crucial crisis in other parts of the world.


At the same time the Nigerian Government has declared a similar policy…and has declared further that with immediate effect from 30th September … she will withdraw all her federal interests in the territory. Consequently, with effect from 1st October it seems that chaos will reign there. For in effect it means that from this date the 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards leaves the territory aboard the troopship 'Devonshire,' and on the same ship all Nigerian and British Government representatives leave the Cameroons. At a rough estimate there are some 150 Government officials here, and it is common knowledge that there are no more than 30 Cameroon officials capable of taking on such responsibilities. The Post Office will close down completely as this is completely run by the Nigerian Government, and also it is almost certain that the police force will do likewise, as some 70 per cent. of the local police force (which is the Nigerian Police Force) will be pulled out unless they personally opt to stay. This actually applies also to all the Government officials as well, but as the Southern Cameroons Government can, of course, offer them no security as regards pensions rights, etc., it is almost certain that there will be no such offers to stay.
I do not know if these fears are necessarily wholly accurate, but these are the views which have been expressed by somebody there who is saying what has been reported to him by the authorities in the Southern Cameroons. If there are exaggerations, then I ask the Minister to try to clear them up and say exactly what the situation is, because it certainly seems to be a very alarming one.
There are, of course, three problems involved here for the Government. There is, first, the problem of the form of government that is to succeed in the Cameroons—the kind of union that there is to be between the Southern Cameroons and the Cameroun Republic. Secondly, there is the serious problem of maintaining the administrative machinery of the country. Thirdly, there is the problem of security, of maintaining law and order and of protecting our own people there. I do not put these things in any order of priority.
First, then, is the question of the kind of government that is to be set up. There have been a number of statements from the Prime Minister of the Southern Cameroons, Mr. Foncha, and the President of the Cameroun Republic that they have agreed in general terms that the best form of government would be a federation. There can be no doubt that, given the difficulties facing the two countries, with their different systems of administrations and their different

languages, federation is the only practicable system, certainly in the interests of the inhabitants of the Southern Cameroons. But there is no sort of clarity as to how far this is a definite commitment on behalf of the Cameroun Republic, and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us how far the Cameroun Republic is committed to a federal form of government.
I know that in the Republic many voices are being raised to express a very different and much more alarming point of view. If the House will bear with me while I talk French for one sentence, I understand that "Le premier Octobre on va saisir le Camerun du Sud" is a familiar slogan. I am wondering how far this is an official slogan of the Government of the Cameroun Republic, and what our Government are doing to try to ensure that there is a firm agreement in black and white that there should be a proper federal system which will allow the two territories to work out their future harmoniously and gradually. I think that the House deserves much more information than we have been able to obtain through repeated questioning by hon. Members on both sides.
Secondly, I come to the problem of maintaining the administration. It is now fully twelve months since I raised with the Government the question of the administrative machine running down seriously. At the time, certain temporary measures were taken by means of seconding from the newly-independent Government of Nigeria and by means of taking on people on short-term contracts. Is it true, as is being said, that most of the expatriate civil servants in the Southern Cameroons have decided to withdraw on 1st October? If it is true, what is to be done to carry on their work.
According to the last Trusteeship Report which the Government made, out of 6,829 civil servants in the Southern Cameroons, 129 were British and 880 were other Africans apart from Cameroonians. I take it that they were mostly Nigerians. This means that 1,000 expatriates who, I take it, are the top civil servants in the Southern Cameroons, the people holding the key positions in the administration, are, by and large, to be withdrawn or are going to withdraw themselves on 1st October. This gives


one an alarming picture of a kind of Congo chaos which may develop in this small country if adequate steps are not taken to fill the posts held by these people. A number of us want to know from the Government tonight what steps are being taken to carry on the essential administration of the country during the period that the unification arrangements are being carried through.
Thirdly, one comes to the question of security. Here, of course, first and foremost one is dealing with the safety of our own people, men, women and children, in that country. According to the correspondent whom I quoted earlier, the women and children are already very largely, being evacuated from the territory, and arrangements are being made for those men staying behind to barricade themselves in the clubs and other communal buildings in the places where they live and to be ready to face a dangerous situation if it arises.
What are the arrangements which the Government are making to ensure the safety of our people there? The 1st October comes at the end of the rainy season in the Southern Cameroons. I am told that there are three methods by which we can get people out of the Southern Cameroons. One is by a road into Nigeria, the Kumba-Mamfe road, and that is likely not to be in very good shape at that time of the year. The second method is by air from the airfield at Tiko which can deal only with light aircraft that can carry a relatively few people. Therefore, one comes to the question of evacuation by sea.
I have already read to the House the report from The Times saying that arrangements are being made to have a naval vessel in the vicinity. Can we have some more information about this and a firm assurance that as far as our people are concerned the Government are taking all steps necessary to safeguard their lives?
Can we have some information from the Government concerning what they are doing about the maintenance of law and order after 1st October? There was a story in the Daily Express earlier this week in which its correspondent in the Southern Cameroons stated:
The Premier of the Southern Cameroons, Mr. Foncha, has appealed to Britain to let the

troops stay when the British adminstrators move out.
Indeed, I think that Mr. Foncha told the Daily Express:
My Government and business interests have appealed to Britain three times, but Britain has refused.
Is this true? Can we be told what requests have been made to the British Government about maintaining law and order after 1st October and what sort of response has been made?
I must confess that the information which I receive is very disturbing. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been pressing this matter on the Government by Questions in recent months. I have here a report from one of the Cameroon newspapers of 1st July giving a statement by our Commissioner in the Southern Cameroons who refers to the questions that we have been asking in the House about British troops staying on there and law and order being maintained. He says:
I have been advised that there has been no change in Her Majesty's Government policy in this respect and that it is definitely the intention of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the British troops on 1st October.
I think that we are entitled to know whether that is irrevocably the Government's position, and, if it is, what are the alternatives. What are we going to do in this territory for which, in my view, we have a very strong moral responsibility, quite apart from our legal responsibilities?
Before I come to the suggestions I wish to put before the Government for dealing with the matter, it is only fair to try to measure up what the Government's responsibilities have been and how far they have fulfilled them. It is a pretty poor story. The Government had ample warning of the difficulties which were mounting up in the Southern Cameroons. Month after month has gone and indeed year after year. We are now within a few weeks of 1st October and nothing effective has been done to ensure that this Territory, into which we have put much work, will have a reasonable chance of going forward into a prosperous and peaceful future.
The Government have been guilty of neglect in a number of different instances. They should have fought much harder than they did at the United


Nations in the Trusteeship Council for a third choice being offered to the peoples of the Southern Cameroons when the plebiscite took place. The fact was that both the Prime Minister of the Southern Cameroons and the Leader of the Opposition there, though they had same differences between themselves, were anxious that there should be sufficient breathing space for the Southern Cameroons to negotiate with the Cameroun Republic proper arrangements for union and that they should not be suddenly forced into the kind of union which may well be thrust upon them without adequate preparation.
I appreciate the difficulties of our getting our way in the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations, but it does not seem to me from reading the debates there and from what I have been able to gather that Her Majesty's Government made nearly a big enough effort to back up the elected leaders of the Southern Cameroons in facing up to this problem.
The way we have behaved towards our own civil servants there cannot be described by any other word than disgraceful. They are devoted overseas civil servants who have been working a long time in the Southern Cameroons. They have done fine work there and are anxious to go on doing fine work, if they are given reasonable security about the future. When during recent months they have asked Her Majesty's Government what arrangements are to be made, the Government have had to shrug their shoulders and reply, "We cannot tell. We do not know. We cannot give you any information". Is it any wonder that against that background these civil servants feel that they cannot possibly take the risks of going on beyond 1st October?
Then there is the way the Government's behaviour matches up to the commitments we have there. The Government have a very big Colonial Development Corporation investment there. There has been a certain amount of criticism from behind the Minister about the fact that in a country which, even if all goes well, will be a foreign country after 1st October the Colonial Development Corporation has been allowed to carry on with a very large investment

programme indeed. It has an investment in the Cameroon Development Corporation which will rise to £3 million, if all goes well. We on this side welcome the suggestion that the Cameroon Development Corporation should be allowed to expand beyond the point of independence, but it is astonishing that a Government who decide to make this kind of large-scale investment of a quite novel sort, because it is unique in the annals of the Colonial Development Corporation, should not take much more adequate steps than have been taken to safeguard the maintenance of the administration there and the future of law and order in the Territory.
Another matter which is vitally important to the Southern Cameroons is the pace of Africanisation of the public service. Progress has been dismally slow. This is vital for the carrying on of the administration as our own people come out. It is also vital for getting a harmonious feeling amongst the diverse elements in the country that the trusteeship power has done its best.
One of the reasons for some of the more violent political resentments in the Cameroons is the feeling that the Africanisation of the public service has not gone ahead nearly fast enough. This feeling is there on the French as well as the British side of the border. If one looks at the figures in our report to the Trusteeship Council, it will be seen that in 1955 expatriate civil servants formed 30 per cent. of the public service—presumably the top 30 per cent.—and in 1959 they still formed 28 per cent. A drop of 2 per cent. during those four critical years when everyone knew that this situation was coming was a miserable rate of progress and does not reflect well on the kind of drive which the Government put behind this important aspect of their policy.
One is bound to come to the conclusion that the Government have failed to take the problem of the Southern Cameroons sufficiently seriously. I admit that they have had many other important problems to tackle, but it is tragic that they 'have not paid more attention to ensuring that this situation could not arise in this trusteeship territory.
One comes down to the question of what one can try to do to save this situation. I put this proposal first and foremost to the Minister. I suggest that even at this late stage the Government should send to the talks which are to be resumed in a day or so between the Cameroun Republic, the Southern Cameroons and Her Majesty's Government, not a civil servant, but a Minister. I do not know whether it ought to be the Minister now on the Front Bench opposite, or a Minister from the Foreign Office, but the situation demands the personal attention of a Government Minister to make sure that the necessary sense of urgency is given to trying to make proper arrangements between the Cameroun Republic and the territory of the Southern Cameroons.
Secondly, I suggest that the Minister who goes to the talks should seek to obtain the consent of the Government of the Cameroun Republic to an urgent approach to the United Nations to gain some sort of breathing space for dealing with the problems which I have been describing. The difficulties here are immense, but the scale of the tragedy which might ensue is so great that emergency action is justified. As I understand the United Nations arrangements, this is a matter for the General Assembly. It is possible that an emergency session of the General Assembly will be called in any case over the Bizerta situation, and perhaps we could appeal to that meeting for a decision which would give more breathing space.
If that is not possible, the ordinary meeting of the General Assembly takes place in September—before the final date of 1st October—and I think it is necessary that we should try to get a decision then. I agree that our responsibility is to the United Nations—I will have a word to say about that in a moment—and that it is necessary to gain their consent to any effective proposals to meet this situation.
Looking at this problem, I feel more and more convinced that the United Nations need some sort of permanent expeditionary force which could be drafted at short notice to deal with this kind of situation in this kind of place. Clearly it would be very much better if our military commitments in terms of

maintaining law and order could be taken over by a military force responsible to the United Nations. I recommend that the Government try to get this proposal accepted by the United Nations. Failing that, cannot we persuade the United Nations to give us, as the trusteeship power, the right to stay there to maintain law and order while the processes of independence initiated by the Trusteeship Council are carried through?
The advantages of a United Nations force are obvious. One of the reasons for the political violence in both territories of the Cameroons is the strong objection to the military forces of ourselves and the French. It would help to take the edge off that kind of opposition if the forces which maintained law and order were genuine United Nations forces. I think it important that law and order should be maintained and life safeguarded, and the possibility of peaceful progress preserved.
It is also desperately important that some arrangements be made about giving technical assistance to the Cameroons and emergency help in maintaining the administration there. That should be put to the United Nations by the Government. I yield to no one in my appreciation of the importance of the United Nations. I believe that in a real sense the United Nations is the hope of the world. But my regard is this side of idolatry, especially after reading the reports of the debates of the Trusteeship Council.
A failure by the United Nations to avoid chaos in a country like the Cameroons does not seem to me to absolve this country from doing something about it. Article 4 of the original trusteeship agreement between this country and the United Nations says that the administering authority shall be responsible (a) for the peace, order and good government and defence of the territory and (b) for ensuring that it shall play its part in the maintenance of international peace and security. I cannot imagine anything more likely to cause a disturbance to international peace and security or less likely to bring peace, order and good government to the territory than the sudden creation of the kind of vacuum which will confront us unless something is done urgently.
I believe that this country has a good record of giving independence to Colonial Territories and we have a good record in terms of our trusteeship responsibilities to the United Nations as has been shown clearly in the case of Tanganyika. I hope that even at this late stage something will be done to allow this country to maintain the record which it has enjoyed hitherto.
I suppose that the optimistic view to take in this situation amidst all the gloom which I have been expressing, is that in the Cameroons we may be able to get the kind of satisfactory results which we have been able to get in difficult circumstances in Somaliland. But in Somaliland the Government did a number of things which apparently they have not been able to do so far, at any rate, in the Cameroons. Before the point of independence in Somaliland they were able to prepare a proper compensation agreement for the civil servants who knew where they stood, and to make arrangements for a substantial number of them to stay on for a time to make sure that the take-over took place as smoothly as possible. They were able to give the new Government financial assistance on the scale of £1,500,000 for the coming five years with the promise of more in the light of circumstances. I think it desperately important that we should do something of the kind for the Cameroons and I hope that the Minister will tell us that some of these things are in hand.
Despite the tremendous difficulties in both the Cameroun Republic and in the Southern Cameroons the possibilities through bringing about a union between these two territories are considerable, not only for themselves but for the kind of example which they can set for other African territories in the future. If it is possible to bring about a peaceful and progressive union between the French-speaking and English-speaking territories, the old arbitrary boundaries of the nineteenth century pro-Consuls would be wiped out and we could get new countries established in Africa which would take better account of the feelings of African nationalism. This is a very late stage at which to try to do the right thing in the Cameroons. In a real sense, it is the eleventh hour. But I plead with the Government that

although they have delayed so long and have neglected so many things, they should act even now, before it is too late.

2.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): With the leave of the House, I should like to address it again. We all owe a debt to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) for the extremely able way in which he has presented his case. It is suitable that the House should reflect on the circumstances which will accompany the termination of our responsibility as the authority administering a United Nations' trust for nearly forty years. It is vital to get the main facts clear.
Following the independence of Nigeria in which the Southern Cameroons was administered as an integral part, the United Nations decided that the people of the Southern Cameroons must reach a decision on their own future. The hon. Member raised the point whether the people of the Southern Cameroons should have been given a wider Choice. The fact is that the United Nations decided that the choice was either to join Nigeria or to join the independent Cameroun Republic. That was the issue, and in the plebiscite held on 11th February, 233,571 people voted to join the Cameroun Republic and 97,741 to join Nigeria. There was an overwhelming majority in favour of joining the Cameroun Republic.
The United Nations considered this result and reached the conclusion that the plebiscite was fair and properly carried out and that the people had freely expressed their wishes about their future. Consequently, the United Nations considered that the United Kingdom trusteeship over the Southern Cameroons should terminate, and the date for termination put forward and accepted by us was 1st October, 1961. The United Nations realised that there would be considerable problems in the union of the Cameroun Republic and the Southern Cameroons. The hon. Member has mentioned some of these undoubted problems—those of language, of law and of cultural traditions, which are quite different from those of the French.
But it was decided that this trusteeship, which we had held for forty years,


should terminate on 1st October, 1961, when the Southern Cameroons would join the Cameroun Republic. This is a far more complicated question than that of simple independence; it is a question both of granting independence and of creating a new unit from the Cameroun Republic and the Southern Cameroons. In the resolution passed by the United Nations, we as the administering authority were invited, together with the Governments of the Southern Cameroons and the Cameroun Republic, to initiate discussions with a view to finalising before 1st October the arrangements by which the agreed and declared policies of the parties concerned would be implemented.
Since this resolution was passed, there have been several discussions between Mr. Foncha, the Premier of the Southern Cameroons, and the President of the Republic, Mr. Ahidjo. There have been further tripartite discussions between ourselves, the Cameroun Republic and the Southern Cameroons, and, as the hon. Member said, there will be a resumption of these talks this very weekend.
The hon. Member suggested that a Minister should go out from this country to take part in those talks. He further suggested that an approach should be made by Mr. Ahidjo—I assume that he would be the appropriate person, since, as the hon. Member said, the size of the Cameroun Republic compared with the size of the Southern Cameroons is as three to one—to suggest that there should be a breathing-space. It is not for me to suggest to Mr. Ahidjo what should be done in these matters, but, doubtless, he will see a report of the hon. Member's suggestion. As regards the idea that a Minister should go out from this country, I think that it would probably be more appropriate at this stage that we should be represented through the normal channels, which in this case will be the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office. I think that that would be the best and most suitable way we can offer what is really technical assistance at this point.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The hon. Gentleman has made the astonishing comment that it should be left to the happy chance that Mr. Ahidjo may read HANSARD and hear of the suggestion that an approach for a breathing-space should be made

to the United Nations. Are not we a party? Have not Her Majesty's Government, through their trusteeship, a direct interest in these tripartite negotiations for a future settlement? Is it not possible for our representative to put this proposal at the discussions and try to achieve a joint approach to the United Nations?

Mr. Fraser: I think the views expressed by the hon. Member this evening will be drawn to the attention of those concerned, but it would be rash for me to suggest at this stage that it would be possible to delay the process which has been set in motion. I have considered it, but I think that the United Nations has determined now that the change should take place on 1st October, and there may well be reasons within the Southern Cameroons why there should not be further delay.
It would be wrong for me to try to anticipate the detailed arrangements which we hope will result from these discussions which are about to take place. Inevitably, the negotiations for the unification of two countries which have been so long separate involve many practical problems, to some of which the hon. Gentleman drew attention. I can say that the discussions so far have been fruitful and that quite a large number of matters have been agreed. We hope that there will be further conclusions reached at the meeting which is about to take place.
Many of the questions to be settled are essentially matters which concern the other two parties and they have to decide on many points in the constitution and in the take-over of various functions which will fall to the new State. Our specific task between now and October is to do all we can to facilitate the joining of the two countries in accordance with the United Nations resolution.
The actual constitutional arrangements are essentially matters for the Cameroonians themselves. We know, however, that the two sides have clearly indicated their intention to establish a federation, which implies, of course, that they will within the federation maintain distinct identities. At this stage, while there is a French-speaking section and an English-speaking section of the new State, I believe that a federal solution is the best.
In the course of his speech, the Member referred to the security situation after 1st October. It is no secret that the Cameroun Republic has had to face problems created by the existence of armed terrorists. Naturally, this must be a cause for alarm, or, at least, for fear, in the months ahead.
Up to 1st October, our responsibility is to maintain, to the best of our ability, the conditions of law and order in the Southern Cameroons. This entails such measures as are necessary to protect the people from the threat from terrorists from across the border, who have tended to come across to seek safety from the forces of the Cameroun Republic. Our military forces consist, as the hon. Member knows, of a battalion of the Grenadier Guards. They have maintained active patrols, and from time to time encounters have taken place with small groups of terrorists.
As, however, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stated in this House, after 1st October our responsibility will cease and the British battalion will be withdrawn. This decision has been communicated both to the Government of the Southern Cameroons and to the Government of the Cameroun Republic, so that they can prepare their own measures for replacing the battalion.
Naturally, there must exist in the minds of British civilians who contemplate remaining in the Southern Cameroons after 1st October to carry on their normal activities, anxieties about the security situation. We are well aware of those anxieties. The fact that those anxieties exist does not, however, alter the basic fact that Her Majesty's Government's responsibility for the Southern Cameroons must come to an end on 1st October. After that, British subjects living in the Southern Cameroons will be living in a foreign country. We must hope that as events unfold, the situation will not be as gloomy as the hon. Member made out. Clearly, Her Majesty's Government cannot be expected to forecast the state of affairs which will exist in a country for which we will cease to have responsibility.
It would be wrong for me on this occasion to omit reference to the co-operation that we have had from the Government of Nigeria. The hon. Member did

a slight dis-service when he talked of the slowness of the localisation and our failure to achieve a sufficiency of indigenous civil servants. This failure was partially because of the timetable, which was not within our own hands. Certainly, tribute should be paid to the Nigerians for what they have done to help. Services which were previously federal Nigerian services have been continued, and will be continued, under agency agreements until such time as we can either make a permanent arrangement or the new federal State comes into being.
Arrangements are under discussion for the transfer to the Southern Cameroons of these services, which have been on an agency basis since Nigeria became independent in October. Among the most important of these services is the police, who come under the direct control of the Commissioner of the Southern Cameroons. As the hon. Member knows, many of the gazetted rank are members of the Nigerian Police Force, and negotiations are proceeding about what we can do with these men.
We also hope to make arrangements that will enable expatriate Civil Service officers in the direct employ of the Southern Cameroon Republic or seconded to that Government by Nigeria to stay on after 1st October if this is desired by the successor Government but it would be impossible to predict how many officers will, in fact, stay. This will depend on such matters as pay, and pensions and it is not unnatural that, in view of the uncertainty of the future, quite a number of expatriates whether in Government service or in commerce, may wish to leave. There is no question of Her Majesty's Government encouraging them to leave, because there is a great deal of useful work still to be done. The decision whether to leave or to stay is one which must be taken by the individual.
It is understood that, as a precaution, a number of expatriates have already sent their wives and children back to this country and others may decide between now and 1st October to do the same. We are looking into the need for transport facilities so that those who wish to do so are able to leave by that date, whether by ship or by air. I emphasise that this is in no sense an


evacuation, but clearly we have an obligation to ensure that those who wish to leave are in fact able to do so. It is part of our duty to look after the interests of our citizens in a foreign country, which is what this territory will be after 1st October.
I am confident that all will go well, but I must be frank with the House and say that I have anxieties, if not of the extreme sort expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East. It is not an easy matter for a small country to embark upon a course which involves a radical change in its whole structure. There are bound to be difficulties, but the people have chosen this way. I do not think that the leaders of the people of the Cameroons have shut their eyes to the difficulties. They are facing their future with a commendable spirit of optimism and we should wish them well and offer what assistance and help we can, while preserving our rights to safeguard the interests of our own nationals.

Orders of the Day — CHIEF CONSTABLE, KILMARNOCK (APPOINTMENT)

2.19 a.m.

Mr. William Ross: I think that I have every reason to congratulate myself in that I have been able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, at about twenty minutes past two o'clock in the morning, because I am merely continuing to argue a case which I first raised on this very same occasion last year at five past three in the morning. If that is progress, then I hope I shall also make progress with the Secretary of State, because in his hands is not only my agony of waiting but also the meeting of the wishes of the Town Council of Kilmarnock, which constitutes the police authority, and also the people of Kilmarnock. The right hon. Gentleman could do that if he would move away from his arbitrary determination to show that he knows better who should be, or should not be, the chief constable of the area.
This matter is a result of the vacancy which arose in the earlier part of 1960—in May, to be exact—since when the town of Kilmarnock has been without an appointed chief constable. It gat to the point where Kilmarnock Town Council, as the police authority, thinking, as it

did, that the Secretary of State for Scotland was acting ultra vires, outwith the regulations which he himself had spelled out and laid down about the qualifications for appointment as chief constable, decided that it should go to the court of session and ask for a declarator. I think it was about 21st June of this year that we got that declarator from Lord Cameron.
The decision was no great surprise to me, and I am sure it must have been a considerable comfort to the Secretary of State for Scotland, when Lord Cameron, after what can justly be called a very full and careful opinion, delivered his judgment and took the view that the issue in the case in substance is not one of law but of administration, and that the Secretary of State in the exercise of the discretion committed to him by Parliament by Section 6 (1) of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956, was entitled to have regard to general administrative considerations.
The general administrative consideration, and the only one which has been put forward as a bar to approving a man who was selected by the police authority, was that he had spent all his days as a police officer within that police force. If the Secretary of State looks back at the speech which he delivered from that Box exactly a year ago he will find that he offered no other reason and went out of his way, as everyone else has gone out of the way, to state that he had nothing against the person appointed. His service, his ability, his qualifications, all justify his being accepted.
But one thing, and one thing only, was the barrier. The Secretary of State for Scotland had made a speech at the Police College at Tulliallan in 1958 in which he brought to the notice of police authorities the fact that he would have difficulty in appointing anyone from within a police force to become the chief constable of that force. I wonder, will the Secretary of State never learn? An old rule of politics is never explain and never apologise. It is an old rule for the occupant of your distinguished position, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, never to give reasons. Discretion is given to the Chair in the selection of Amendments, etc., and all that the occupants of the Chair say, if they are wise, is that it has not been


selected. Whenever they start to give reasons they start to get into trouble, and the Secretary of State, whenever he makes a speech, gets into trouble. When that speech is a reason to justify something on which he is not called upon to give reasons then he gets into even greater trouble. The Secretary of State has been described as "Maclay in the hands of the potter." He should stand up to those people In his Department who want him to make speeches and pronouncements on this, that and the next thing, because in this case he got right into trouble.
If there is one thing clear from the opinion of Lord Cameron and from the whole course of this case, it is that the opinion and finding of Lord Cameron is based more on researches into and knowledge of the law of Lord Cameron than on the argument put forward by the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
It is not my intention to attack the Solicitor-General for Scotland. It so happens, that the Conservative Party has not been able to find a seat for him in Scotland. He is not in the House. I suppose that one day some of the more aged among the Scottish Tory Members will have reached the apex of political success and will have got their knighthoods and will leave the nightshift, as we now call the Tory side of the Scottish Grand Committee, and one of them will make way for the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
Lord Cameron took a great deal more time to write his findings that I have had to study them—I obtained a copy only yesterday—but he makes comments which leads one to wonder about the concern he showed about an attitude of the Solicitor-General for Scotland during the argument.
… at one stage of the debate
he says—
it seemed as though a new and much wider issue was being opened as the Solicitor-General appeared to suggest that it would be open to the defender, having already made Regulations in statutory form prescribing the qualifications for office as chief constable, to add to them as he liked and to promulgate or publish these additions in any way he wished. Later the Solicitor-General for Scotland retracted from this extreme and exposed position, and frankly conceded that … it was necessary that the whole qualifications for office should be set out in the Regulations contained in the relative Statutory Instruments and made in accordance with the Act.

I would remind the Secretary of State that this was the attitude which he and the Lord Advocate took up and which his advisers took up towards the Kilmarnock authority's point of view when, with me, representatives met him. If anyone has been proved a pretty bad lawyer in this affair it is the Lord Advocate. I did not demand that he should be here tonight but I am surprised that he is not.
Lord Cameron also said:
It was at one stage however suggested by junior counsel for the defender"—
that is the Secretary of State—
that … the defender did not require to set out all or any of the qualifications for office in the Regulations made by him.
But he quickly ran away from that too.
It was this attitude, which is bureaucracy run riot, that led the Kilmarnock magistrates, town council and police authority to stand up for their own rights and their own choice. I can well understand what the Secretary of State is trying to do. I expressed myself on this at this time last year. But the right hon. Gentleman must realise his own limitations in the discretion which Parliament has given him. His sole power in connection with the appointment of a chief constable is the power to say "No" and he does not require to say why he says "No". But let us remember that in saying "No", the right hon. Gentleman is making no choice. He is saying "No" to one man.
There is another part of Lord Cameron's opinion, relating to a quoted attitude on the part of the Solicitor-General for Scotland which I could not quite understand, because it is not in accordance with fact. It is quoted by Lord Cameron and he seems to accept it:
… the Solicitor-General argued that if therefore the Secretary of State has left himself and is free in any given case to exercise a choice between an appointee from within a force and one from outside each of whom possesses the requisite qualifications as laid down in the Regulations, how can it be said that in expressing a general intention to prefer candidates from outside he is legislating or prescribing a general disqualification for appointments?
The Secretary of State is faced with no choice. He is faced only with the man who has been appointed by the police authority, and his only power is to say "No". On the basis of saying "No",


one cannot build up a constructive general policy. A constructive general policy in relation to appointment of chief constables can be gained only through a Regulation or by the consent and co-operation of the police authorities; in other words, in consultation, in getting the co-operation of all the authorities he will require to consult—if he does not follow "a general policy", "general principle", "rule of practice", "normal course". This general policy of the Secretary of State of not wanting people from within the force has been called different things at different times. But he can do that only if he gets co-operation, only if he persuades the police authorities; and that he has signally failed to do.
I would ask the Secretary of State to think again about how he hopes to apply this. He had better face the very bitter facts, the facts of everything that has happened since he made the speech in 1958. This is what is at issue tonight, because although Lord Cameron said that in law he had no power to do what he did, Lord Cameron did not say that he was right to do what he did. The Secretary of State cannot be called in question anywhere else but in this House.
I remind the Secretary of State what Lord Cameron said:
But of course a decision on this issue is not and cannot be a decision on the merits, either of the question of policy"—
that is, in relation to not picking men from within their own force—
to which parties refer or of the particular case. These are essentially matters of administration and I have neither the jurisdiction nor the material to express any opinion on such matters.
Then he says this:
I would venture to say only this; that they are obviously matters on which divergent views may be held by responsible persons and supported by substantial and respectable reasons.
That being so, we find immediately the reasons for the tragic story of the Secretary of State's Tulliallan declaration and his failure to apply it. Look at what has happened.
We will skip 1957, when, in Coat-bridge, a local man was appointed. In 1958, the deputy chief constable of

Lanarkshire was appointed chief constable. The man who had been chief constable had himself been appointed from that force. He could not have been so terrible, because the Secretary of State appointed him Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. That in itself made nonsense of the general application of his principle.
Also in 1958 the Chief Constable of Roxburgh and Selkirk was appointed from within the force, and so was the Chief Constable of Greenock. In 1959, the City of Glasgow appointed a new chief constable. Was he a man from outside, possessed of all these qualifications the Secretary of State says are essential and without which the right hon. Gentleman would have found it difficult to approve the appointment? The new chief constable was a man from within the Glasgow force.
In 1960 there were only two vacancies. Kilmarnock's has still to be filled. In the other case, a man from outside was appointed. This year is not yet finished but we have had the case of Argyll. I see the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) gracing the Government Front Bench. He is Chief Whip of the Scottish Tories. I wonder if his influence had anything to do with the fact.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): Certainly not.

Mr. Ross: I hope not, but the people of Kilmarnock see that when it came to accepting an appointment from within the force at Argyll, the Secretary of State shelved his general principle again. What kind of general principle is it? How can the people of Kilmarnock be expected to accept it? Apparently it need not be applied to Lanarkshire, Argyll, Glasgow, Greenock, Coatbridge, or to Roxburgh and Selkirk—but the Secretary of State needs to apply it to Kilmarnock.
Surely the nature of the comment by Lord Cameron is worthy of consideration—that substantial reasons can be put forward for the other side of the issue, and that they can be well held by reasonable people. I ask the Secretary of State to appreciate that, while we are all appealing again and again for raising the standards of local government in order to


get more interest taken in it, and, as he himself has said, to give more authority to local authorities, he is undermining it by interfering to a point which is not worth it.
The Secretary of State should remember—and I argued with the Lord Advocate in private about what the Statute really meant—that it becomes clear from the indications of Lord Cameron what the rights of the Secretary of State are, and equally clear what the rights of the police authority are. The police authority has full rights to appoint, and to appoint within the qualifications laid down in the Regulations of the Secretary of State. It cannot do anything else. In appointing, it is carrying out its statutory obligation. That is just what the Kilmarnock authority did. It did nothing wrong. Indeed, it would have been wrong to do anything else.
As sincere men, the members of that authority believed that the man they picked out of the six before them was the best one for the job. But does all this reside, in the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does it reside in the Scottish Office?
I must confess that the people concerned in Kilmarnock have detected an attitude of petulant arrogance and bureaucratic irritation because they have dared to disagree with the Scottish Office. I hope that the Secretary of State will remember his own past. It is time that we got it back on to the record. And I hope, too, that he remembers the past of his own party. "Centralisation of Power." This is taken from The Times of 16th October, 1950. Of course, we were on the eve of an election. This was the speech of the then Leader of the Conservative Party, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill):
It is inherent in their conception of State control."—
that is the Labour Government—
But, as history shows, the division of ruling power has always been for more than 500 years the aim of the British people. It is the keynote of our Parliamentary system and of the constitutions we have spread all over the world. The division of power, the idea of checks and counter-checks, the resistance to the theory that one man or group of men can, by sweeping decisions and gestures, reduce all the rest of us to subservience, have always been the war cries of the British nation.

I can well remember when we debated the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, 1947. I remember, too, that at this time last year Kilmarnock Town Council was receiving threatening letters from the Secretary of State saying that if it did not get about its business he was going to withdraw the Exchequer grant. But when the 1947 Bill was going through an Amendment was moved because the Conservative Opposition at that time thought that the way recalcitrant local authorities were dealt with was really shameful. I think it was Lord Reid who moved that Amendment. Notice the man who spoke next. He is now the Chairman of Glenfield and Kennedy of Kilmarnock. He probably takes a different view about it now. The speech that followed thereafter is, I think, worthy of quotation. This was a speech made by the present Secretary of State for Scotland during the Committee stage of the Bill. He said:
If what I am going to say appears to bring a political element into our discussion, I must make it clear that I would take precisely the same view, whether this particular aspect of legislation came from a Government of the Right or the Left"—
sane, balanced words—
For the last two years we have seen, stage by stage, the centralisation of a number of things, particularly in regard to local government matters … I have been extremely worried about it.
The person concerned instanced two Acts of Parliament—one was the Fire Services Act and the other the Police (Scotland) Act. Strangely enough, centralisation was his theme.
The right hon. Gentleman went on:
The Secretary of State has been lurking in the background, with his fingers on the whole thing. In this Clause the Secretary of State is given the most complete powers to deal with any recalcitrant local authority. If the Secretary of State wanted to use his powers for political purposes, he could do so. I will give an illustration of what I mean by telling the Committee an interesting story I heard in the United States, which is strictly true. This is a very good example of the kind of thing that might happen.
Senator Huey Long of the State of Louisiana then came into the speech. We were told:
At one time he was rather concerned about how the vote was going in some of the districts. He did not think that his nominee for governorship was getting the support he should have. At that time he was engaged upon building a new road throughout the whole of the State.… When he came to a district which was


not voting for him, he brought the road very nicely up to the border, and then crossed over to the other side and carried on with the job. That may seem very far-fetched, but it shows what happens when powers are put completely in the hands of one man. We know that it would not happen with the present Secretary of State, but we shall have other Secretaries of State in the future.
These are most unwise and dangerous powers to give to any Secretary of State.… If we are to allow these powers to be centralised, we must have the maximum control against any unwise or wilfully naughty interference by the Secretary Of State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee; 17th December, 1947, cc. 2304–5.]
The man who made the speech is the present Secretary of State. He is the man who now seeks to lay down the law to the police authority of the Town Council of Kilmarnock.
This breakdown in co-operation between the central and the local government is a dangerous thing. It is a thing to be deplored. It is a thing to be regretted. It is even more to be regretted in Scotland than in England and Wales, because if a local authority in England and Wales falls out with the Home Department that does not affect it in its attitude to the Minister of Transport, to whom it goes in relation to roads, or to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to whom it goes in relation to housing, or to the Minister of Health, to whom it goes in relation to health. But in Scotland the Minister of Health is the Secretary of State, the Minister of Housing and Local Government is the Secretary of State, and the Minister of Education is the Secretary of State. The police authority, the local authority, is the same authority which has to deal with the same Secretary of State on all these things. If there is a breakdown in confidence and co-operation in one, does it not affect the other things as well?
The Secretary of State is busy at the moment trying to persuade the town of Kilmarnock to enter into a joint scheme with the county for the development of water. Lord Craigton, the Minister of State, is anxious to persuade the town of Kilmarnock to do certain things in relation to overspill. Co-operation is a two-way trade. Men as sincere, honest and substantial as the members of the Town Council of Kilmarnock are entitled to ask for much more substantial reasons than have been given for the failure to get their nominee approved

by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will remember telling us at the Dispatch Box within the last fortnight in a debate on housing what a progressive local authority Kilmarnock is. It is the same local authority to whom he denies the wisdom of making a choice of the right man. That is the implication. I have heard Kilmarnock praised at the Dispatch Box for its progressive attitude to health and the fluoridisation of water. I have heard Kilmarnock praised in relation to its police work. It has the finest record in relation to traffic accidents of any burgh in Scotland. We straddle one of the busiest roads in Scotland. The person who has been mainly responsible for the organisation of that happy state of affairs is the man whose appointment has not been approved.
I hope that the Secretary of State even now will put aside any false pride about the stand he has adopted. He would gain immeasurably by recognising the limitations of his general principle, which is the need for cross-fertilisation within the police force. I accept the need for this, but the general principle in relation to any particular appointment must be justified in relation to that appointment. This is the one thing which the right hon. Gentleman has never been prepared to do.
When one says that for a long time the chief constables of Kilmarnock have been men with only local experience, whether that has been detrimental to the progress of Kilmarnock's police force can easily be checked. The Secretary of State has general powers of surveillance in relation to the police in Scotland. He has a Chief Inspector of Constabulary who visits every police force.
The present incumbent is a well respected man. He goes there every year. He checks up on all aspects of police activity. Never once in seven years has there been an adverse report on Kilmarnock. Indeed, far from adverse reports, there has been praise, and the last chief constable of Kilmarnock was awarded the O.B.E. just before he retired.
The last annual visit to Kilmarnock of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary was on 10th or 20th February, 1960. Eighteen months have passed since he was last there. I know that the right


hon. Gentleman will say that the Chief Inspector needs to go there only once a year, and that 1961 is not over, but that will not wash. The established tradition is that the Chief Inspector visits Ayr one day, and Kilmarnock the next. He has been to Ayr, but not to Kilmarnock.
Why has there been this sudden change of routine? I would have thought that if Kilmarnock was without a chief constable, and the man in charge was the deputy chief constable in whom the Secretary of State had no confidence, that would be all the more reason for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector going to Kilmarnock. It is a pity that he did not. He would have been able to check on whether the deputy chief constable was doing a good job.
This is one of the things which the people of Kilmarnock would have liked to have discussed with the Secretary of State, but the right hon. Gentleman refused to see a delegation from there, even though it was accompanied by a Member of Parliament. I thought that that was a little discourteous. The right hon. Gentleman had nothing to lose. He would have learnt about the changes in training and administration, and about the raising of the general level of activity of the police in Kilmarnock which had been of such benefit to the police force there.
This is a capable man. Even Lord Cameron had this to say about him, and it cannot be said too often:
I would also at this stage again emphasise that there is nothing in the pleadings which in any way reflects on the personal capacity of the officer whose appointment to the post of chief constable has given rise to this litigation".
Inspector Scott, the Deputy-Chief Constable of Kilmarnock, has shown a degree of detachment, dignity and loyalty to all the traditions of the police force in the way he has acted during these difficult months and he has applied himself to the task ahead of him, which itself demonstrates that he has all the qualities necessary for a good chief constable.
If the Chief Inspector had made his usual visit, he too would have been impressed by what has happened. This is one of the most outstanding things about the position. Since last year this man has carried out his duties well. He

has taken no part in this dispute. He has carried on his job with a devoted detachment which has shown his inner dignity and his qualifications for the faith which Kilmarnock was prepared to put in him.
I regret very much that the Secretary of State has allowed himself to get into this position, particularly in this case. He knows that until this time last year I did not intervene personally. That was not because I did not feel strongly about the matter. I feel very strongly about what really is when, as it must, it comes down to an examination of the facts, a question of the standing of the police force in Kilmarnock and the ability of the man selected. Whether we like it or not we are casting a reflection on the people of Kilmarnock.
The town of Kilmarnock is a very proud town. It has a progressive municipal record. Its town council, which appointed this man unanimously, is not a Labour council. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect this from the meeting it had with him. Some of the members of the council who are most irritated about this are Conservatives. These are the people who are responsible and they are as active in the national political field as in local politics. They are equally interested in the well-being of the whole of Ayrshire and anxious to raise the standards of the police all over the country. They are not people who would deliberately appoint a man knowing that the appointment would not be in the best interests of Kilmarnock, of Ayrshire and of Scotland.
I think that the Secretary of State has been terribly wrong in not talking this over with Kilmarnock at a very much earlier stage. As is the case with every other authority, the police authority has its rights which are circumscribed by Regulations laid down by the Secretary of State. He has accepted the discretionary power to employ a constructive policy which cannot be applied by regulation and which without regulation cannot be done without the co-operation of the local authority, and he has not got it. There is a clash of opinion. How is this to be resolved? Only by a very much earlier meeting. That is why I am distressed that the right hon. Gentleman refused to meet Kilmarnock. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that


there is nothing in the Statute which says that Kilmarnock shall meet him.
Does he want Kilmarnock to go on and appoint a chief constable without meeting the Scottish Office and without discussing the procedure, and the rest of it, about how it should be done and the kind of traditional things which have gone on and the procedure which Kilmarnock has followed in the past? I am sure that he does not and I am sure that Kilmarnock would not want to do that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the question of the meeting.
I wish to remind the Secretary of State of what happened last year when this impasse happened. At this time the whole of Kilmarnock is on holiday except the unfortunate—well, not unfortunate—the loyal servant of the police force who has been unable to take a holiday for all these months. According to the latest extension of time which the Secretary of State has given the deputy chief constable, the last date is 15th August.
I ask three things. First, will not the right hon. Gentleman meet—as he will have to meet sooner or later—a deputation from the Kilmarnock Town Council and their Member of Parliament; secondly, will he extend the time for a month so that full consideration may be given to the next stage by the police authority; and thirdly, will he cast aside his pride and accept the good advice which is always given by the hon. Member far Kilmarnock and agree that in this case the deputy chief constable would make an excellent chief constable for Kilmarnock?

3.2 a.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I should like to join forces with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who, in his typically lucid fashion, has stated an excellent case why the Secretary of State should review his decision. I believe, as does my hon. Friend, that when the Secretary of State reviews it he should look at the history of the appointments of chief constables in Scotland, because the main reason that he has taken this decision does not arise from the police forces in Scotland; that is not a reason but merely an excuse. He has been put

in a panic because of a certain incident in the south of England which caused the Home Secretary to take panic steps. Being a dutiful servant of the Home Secretary of England, the Secretary of State has followed suit in Scotland. In doing so he has created the situation which exists in Kilmarnock.
The issue goes further than Kilmarnock; it is a serious issue confronting Scotland as a whole. I heard the right hon. Gentleman at Tulliallan, but he proceeds much further when he says that, generally speaking, it is not advisable to appoint a serving officer to become chief constable of his own force. He practically stakes his reputation on that statement without one iota of proof. He is unable to give a single example of an appointment of a chief constable from his own force over the past ten years which he can regard as an undesirable appointment. Yet he makes such a statement, which was taken into consideration at the hearing in the Court of Session.
In fact, the very reverse has happened in Scotland. If he examines the history he will see that the only incidents which have given us any trouble among Scottish chief constables have occurred with people who were appointed outwith the force. Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary is well versed in the history of these incidents and he can confirm what I have said. We have had no trouble with officers appointed from within our force. Our trouble has arisen from officers who were appointed chief constables from outwith the force over which they became chief constables.
It is very unfair and almost libellous for the right hon. Gentleman to say that generally speaking it is undesirable to make such appointments when he is unable to substantiate the inference contained in the statement by producing evidence concerning any individuals who were appointed chief constables of the forces in which they were serving at the time of their appointment in Scotland. The reverse is true. My hon. Friend referred to several police authorities which in the past few years have been given permission to appoint serving officers as chief constables. I could add to the list because, for the past fifteen years, I have been attached to the police in Scotland. I have had a fairly wide experience of its general


operation. To my knowledge, this is the only case where permission has been refused by the Secretary of State to an appointment determined by the local police authority.
I was very pleased when my hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland today was appointed from the force in which he was serving at the time of his appointment. The Secretary of State felt that he was such an excellent officer—indeed, he is, as I know very well, since he has been an acquaintance of mine for many years—that he wrote to Lanarkshire and asked Lanarkshire to release the man that authority had appointed so that he could become the Inspector of Constabulary throughout Scotland. That shows that that local authority knew what it was doing when it appointed him as chief constable.
If the right hon. Gentleman examines all the appointments, he will find that they have all been very capable officers. I have known all the Lanarkshire officers, some of the West of Scotland officers and the Glasgow officers, and others, too. They are all first-class officers. If an officer has served his force, his community and his local authority faithfully for a lifetime and a plum like this comes along, it is criminal to debar him just because he is a member of that force.
The Secretary of State has been ill advised, or he is making a very big mistake. So far from showing that it is generally undesirable to make an appointment from the same force, the records prove that it is, in fact, justifiable and in the best interests of Scotland to do so. I reject the maxim that the man in Whitehall knows better than the man in the town hail. That is nonsense. No one knows better than the people working with the officers at local level in law enforcement. They are the best judges, able to determine the qualifications of the men and of the women serving in the police forces. The man in Whitehall is detached and segregated from the day-to-day running of a police authority, which is the responsibility of the elected representatives.
The Secretary of State has "boobed" in this case. He still has time to recant. There is still time for him to review his

decision and rescind it. There are certain statutory appointments in local authorities over which the Secretary of State for Scotland has a prerogative. Why should he discriminate against chief constables? Why does he not discriminate in the other appointments in local authorities over which he has a prerogative?
I cannot understand the Secretary of State's reasoning in adopting such an attitude. There is no validity in his approach to a matter of this nature. That is another valid reason why he should reverse this regrettable decision which he has reached. When a person is elected to serve a local authority and gives up his time voluntarily to do so for the good management of the community and one of his duties is to elect a chief officer of police, it is wounding and irritating, to say the least, for the likes of the Secretary of State for Scotland to intervene with the working of that democratically elected body through an officer of the Government who has no connection with the authority and no knowledge of its work and operations and who is not in a position to judge the quality or capacity of its officers for appointment.
The members of the local authority are responsible to the electors, who will fudge the local authority representatives if they mismanage the authority's affairs. The Secretary of State should realise that when the local authorities meet him from time to time in that connection concerning financial assistance, he is always advising them—

Mr. John Brewis: If the hon. Member pursues his proposition to its full extent, is there any point in having a Secretary of State?

Mr. Ross: It depends upon who is the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dempsey: Of course there is. I am saying that the Secretary of State has ample to do if he would apply his mind to the affairs of Scotland and keep his nose out of local authority business. Scotland needs schools and is looking for jobs. There is ample for the Secretary of State to do without meddling in the affairs of a local police committee appointing its own chief officer of police.
In the same way as Members of this august assembly are elected, representatives of local authorities are elected by the public to do those very duties. Let us have confidence in those who serve local government to do their duty, and to do it thoroughly and carefully. The least one can expect is that they should have the co-operation of the Secretary of State when appointing the chief constable of a town the size of Kilmarnock. It is not asking too much to ask him to leave that matter in the hands of the local authority and to have confidence in the local authority to carry out its mandate from the electors.
The Secretary of State for Scotland should pay great attention to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. He should realise that when a local authority sets about making an appointment, that authority is the best judge of the capacity of the individuals concerned. It makes the choice, and as a former member of a town council I personally believe that the choice is made in the best interests of the authority, the town, and the community. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock is right.
It would seem to me that there is something radically wrong if the Secretary of State, out of all the appointments made in the last five years, is going to pick and choose and suddenly decide that he is going to do this without giving any reason. I think that my hon. Friend and the deputation of which he speaks is entitled to some consideration. It savours of totalitarianism for the Secretary of State to take this action without being answerable to the authority responsible for the appointment, and I hope that he will see the deputation.
Arguments have been put tonight which are based on practical experience. I hope that the Secretary of State will reverse his regrettable decision to withhold approval of the appointment of the chief constable.

3.16 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I have had some interesting and conflicting advice on this matter, which is a very grave one and I have noticed that we have almost reached precisely the same point in time

as last year. In fact, if another four minutes pass, I think we shall have done so. I do not know whether that is progress or regression. I would refer to the fact that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked me to remember the multiplicity of my functions and the desirability of my maintaining the best possible relations with local authorities because, he said, I should hope for their co-operation over a full range of matters.
I certainly agree with him, and regret that, in this particular matter, I am not in agreement with Kilmarnock Town Council. But the hon. Gentleman should not argue from the general thesis that, in order to maintain good relations all the time, I should take a line of action on a specific item which I honestly think is wrong. It is at times tempting to give way on one thing because one is anxious to maintain good relations, but anybody holding my job must resist this temptation and apply to the best of his ability his judgment and sense of what is right and what is wrong in giving attention to the details of a particular case. If anybody holding my appointment once worries about the effect of his action on his relationship with hon. Members of this House or with local authorities in Scotland in coming to a decision which he clearly sees as his duty, then political honesty will go and he will find himself in the most serious trouble.
This, of course, is one of the problems arising from the multiplicity of duties which I hold.

Mr. Ross: I was not enunciating any principle. I was giving the right hon. Gentleman warning that if confidence breaks down on one thing, that may well affect other matters, and on that score he should be careful not to leave anyone with a sense of justified grievance. There is a sense of justified grievance in Kilmarnock Town Council at the present time.

Mr. Maclay: There must, on occasions, be differences of opinion. It is one of the difficulties of the job to see that one minimises them as much as is humanly possible without departing from principle.
There was another point which the hon. Member made and which is of great substance. It was: never explain and never apologise and never regret.


The logical conclusion to be drawn from that is, I think, that he was hinting to me that I should never make any speeches at all. That might be of very great satisfaction to me and of great satisfaction to the House of Commons, but it would hardly be a way to carry on democratic Government. I am afraid that speeches are an unavoidable part of our political system.
Seriously though, in this particular case and on this particular application of the general principle on which my decision was based, it might have been better not to have explained anything at all, but there was this dilemma, that if one had not given some kind of explanation there would apparently have been a direct reflection either on the force or on the individual concerned; which, as I made clear last year and will repeat again tonight, is not the point at issue at all. This is a difficulty, that where an administrative decision is involved it may be better to say nothing and just give one's decision, but I can well imagine the remarks which would then be made to me by hon. Members opposite, above all by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and perhaps his remarks about my "Huey Long" speech to which he refers from time to time would be really justified—

Mr. Ross: They are justified.

Mr. Maclay: They would be justified if I just point blank refused, in a particular case where an individual is concerned, to give any reasons at all.
The hon. Member did, in quoting that speech, quote that section of it in full and quoted my words "unwise and wilfully naughty". One thing I am quite satisfied about is that in this case my decision cannot be described as wilfully naughty. I accept that whether or not it was unwise is an arguable point. I do not consider it unwise. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and many people in Kilmarnock, I know, consider it unwise, but it is an arguable point.
I think that it would be useful if I recapitulated from my point of view what has happened in this period of just a year since we last debated this matter. As things stood a year ago, as the hon. Member made clear, a vacancy for chief constable of the Kilmarnock force had arisen through the retirement of the previous holder of the office a month or

two earlier. After advertising the vacancy and interviewing selected applicants the Town Council chose the serving deputy chief constable of the force and submitted his name to me for approval. This approval I felt unable to give: not, as I explained to the House last year and again tonight, for reasons which would imply any reflection on the Kilmarnock force or upon the officer personally concerned, but for reasons of general principle.
The principle is one which is generally accepted as being of considerable importance. I think that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) rather denied that just now. I would point out to him that after I made the speech at Tulliallan, which he heard, copies of that speech were, of course, circulated to police authorities all over the country. I am not aware of any criticism coming to me of that general principle, which I announced at that time, although in this specific case the issue has arisen. I would ask the hon. Member to realise that many people believe in this general principle.
The difficulty, of course, is that one cannot invariably apply it. It would be easier if one could make it an absolute rule, but one cannot, for reasons which the hon. Member, with his knowledge of police forces, will understand and appreciate.

Mr. Ross: Why make a general principle of it then?

Mr. Maclay: One needs a general principle, but it cannot always be applied.

Mr. Dempsey: Was that decision for this general principle its first introduction, and, if so, why?

Mr. Maclay: I cannot say whether it was the first time that it was introduced. It was the first time that I as Secretary of State had pronounced on it. I do not think another Secretary of State had made the issue so clear before. I have not had the chance of checking on this, but I believe that the general idea of this was constantly discussed by previous Secretaries of State. But it was felt wise at that time that I should say it in public and I specifically drew the attention of police authorities to it.
In October, 1958—and I repeat this to make clear what happened—I asked police authorities to consider very carefully whether the appointment to the office of chief constable of an officer who had spent all or most of his service in the force concerned was in general desirable. In that speech I pointed out that chief constables should be men with both width of experience and an open and fresh approach and that in the normal course these qualities were more likely to be found in candidates from outside the force. This made it clear to police authorities that unless exceptional circumstances existed I considered that appointments should be made from outside the force.
When Kilmarnock Town Council proposed to appoint the deputy chief constable to the vacancy, the council was aware of my views and had been warned by my hon. Friend the then Joint Under-Secretary of State that I would find difficulty in approving the appointment of the deputy chief constable, who had had all his service in the burgh force, and whose predecessor had also spent all his service in that force. Nevertheless, the council submitted his name. After very careful consideration—I did not enter into the matter lightly—I decided that there were no exceptional reasons in this case for departing from the views that I had formed and that I must accordingly withhold my approval.
The Town Council has had ample opportunity to put its views to me. Deputations from the council met me personally on two occasions, once soon after I had first intimated my decision not to approve the deputy's appointment and again after the debate last year. I considered fully the points put forward at these meetings and in correspondence, but I remained, and remain, of the view that in the general interest an appointment from outside the force is desirable in this case.
In October of last year, after I had reaffirmed my decision, the council informed me that it intended to raise an action in the Court of Session to test the legality of the situation which had arisen. This it did and the case was heard in the Court of Session in May of this year. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock has explained certain things

about that case, but I should like to get the basis of it clear. The main ground of the action was the claim that I was bound, in exercising my power of approval to these appointments, to have regard only to those qualifications for appointment of chief constable which are laid down in police regulations, that is age, length of police service, health and so on, and that I was not entitled to withhold approval of an appointment by the authority in conformity with these regulations on the general ground that immediately before his appointment the candidate was serving in the local police force. Judgment was given at the beginning of June and was against the council.
After the Court's decision was given I was asked to meet a further deputation so that I might reconsider my decision. That was the deputation to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred. It is true that it was suggested that he should accompany the deputation. I hope that the hon. Member will concede that normally, if it is possible, I meet deputations especially when hon. Members are involved. But on this occasion I did not feel able to do so, for reasons which I will give in a moment. I was subsequently told that the deputation wished to draw my attention to the improvements which the deputy had introduced in the force. This did not seem to me to be relevant, since the question which I had all along to consider was not only whether the deputy chief constable was capable of running the force well and properly but also, among a variety of considerations, whether in all the circumstances of the case it was desirable to appoint someone with experience outside the force.
I decided therefore that as the council had already had ample opportunity of making its views known at earlier meetings and in correspondence, no useful purpose from anybody's point of view would be served in my receiving a deputation. I have listened carefully to all that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock has said but I must say frankly that, as far as a deputation for the purpose for which I understood it was intended is concerned, I can find no ground for altering that decision.
During all this time I have agreed to extensions of the period of office of the deputy chief constable. The current


approval, as the hon. Gentleman said, is due to lapse on 15th August, but I shall be prepared to consent to a further extension provided that effective steps are being taken to find another candidate for the vacant post. I hope very much indeed that the council will now take these steps.
I have already said that the position that I have taken up throughout the matter has been based on general principle and that it is not based on criticism of the Kilmarnock force or the present deputy chief constable as an individual. In the debate last year I mentioned some of the considerations which lie behind this general principle and which make some degree of cross-fertilisation of forces at the top very desirable. This is the point which the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie was completely ignoring. He was implying that I am libelling police forces in Scotland by applying this general principle. That is nonsense. There is the whole question of cross-fertilisation.
I do not propose to go through the whole argument as I detailed it at Tulliallan or last year. If the hon. Gentleman will study my speech last year or the Tulliallan speech again, he will realise that there are quite wide grounds for endeavouring to apply this general principle whenever it is practicable. I do not think that anybody had claimed that the principle is unsound until the hon. Member did so this evening. I have never heard anybody else say it. I know that he will agree that in any question of administrative principle there is room for argument and disagreement as to how the general principle should be applied in individual cases.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of cases in recent years in which my approval was given to the appointment as chief constable of an officer already serving in the force concerned, I have never claimed that the principle that chief constables should be appointed from outside must or should be applied universally. I have always acknowledged that there will be cases where an exception should be made. It may be argued that recent figures do not suggest that statistically appointments from inside the force concerned have in the event proved to be exceptional. That

I admit, but I would emphasise that this is a matter which cannot be judged on a purely statistical basis—particularly over a relatively short period. In any case which comes forward it is necessary to weigh up a whole series of considerations in deciding whether an exception is justified. One of these obviously is the period of service in the force concerned of the particular candidate; but also relevant are such questions as the period of service of the retiring chief constable and the size and nature of the force concerned, and a fair number of other considerations. But I do not think that it would be right or appropriate for me to attempt to analyse the extent to which the different considerations have carried weight in the various cases to which hon. Members have referred—

Mr. Ross: Surely the Secretary of State appreciates the gravity of what he is saying? He is referring to considerations where an exception is justified.

Mr. Dempsey: This is the exception.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is doing what Lord Cameron said he should not do. He is making this a new qualification. It should be the other way round—whether the principle is justified in relation to a particular case, not the exception.

Mr. Maclay: It depends on the precise words that one uses.

Mr. Ross: It is what the Secretary of State is thinking.

Mr. Maclay: I do not think that is so. I think I have expressed fairly and accurately this general principle and the method of trying to decide how it is to be applied. However, the hon. Member has had the opportunity to put his point.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up a very simple matter? Reference has been made to cases before the Kilmarnock position and after the Kilmarnock position when deputy chief constables were appointed. Has there been any other single case in which the right hon. Gentleman has refused to approve the appointment of a deputy chief constable other than at Kilmarnock?

Mr. Maclay: At this moment there has not, but I cannot tell whether some of the chief constables who have been


appointed in this period and who were not from within the same force would have been appointed if the principle had not been enunciated. This policy does not only work when cases come to me. It works before they come near me. It must, I agree, work by agreement as far as we can get it. We cannot judge by specific cases in a matter like this. I do not want to repeat too often what one of the difficulties is, but, as I said last year, we have to be clear in the case of Kilmarnock that both the present deputy and the retired chief constable have spent all their service in that force, and that the previous chief constable, who was appointed in 1921, had only a few years' service in a junior rank with another force before joining Kilmarnock's in 1906.
That is a long period without the introduction of new blood in the senior post. It has been almost forty years. It would be wrong to lose the opportunity of introducing new blood now.
I do not think that I can add in detail to what I have said. I feel strongly that it is in nobody's interest that the present state of uncertainty inside and outside the force should continue, and, while I understand the police authority's desire to obtain approval for the course of action it considered to be right, and while I have sympathy with its loyalty to an officer who has served it well, I hope that it will now feel able to accept the decision I have taken as final and in the interests of the force, will take steps to re-advertise the vacancy and make a new appointment.
Of course I will be prepared to meet the police authority again, but not on the narrow point of reconsideration of my decision, because I do not think any circumstance has arisen to justify my doing that. I am anxious to establish and maintain the best possible relations with the local authority, and will watch very carefully for the chance of discussing with it the details of this matter but not of re-opening the whole subject. I am prepared to extend the time of the temporary appointment of the deputy chief constable, providing steps are taken to move towards the position we want.

Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State makes a proviso, and we have to be very careful of his provisos in view of what has happened. What exactly is his proviso in this case?

Mr. Maclay: I do not want to go on extending the period unless there is some sign that the police authority will take steps to put the matter right and to appoint a new chief constable. But I will certainly give an extension in order to make that possible.
Finally, the hon. Member said that I should get rid of my pride and change my mind. I have given reasons why I feel that I cannot change my mind, and I assure him that there is no question of pride. It is very tempting, as I have said, to make concessions on matters like this when strong feelings are held by many people, but I should be completely failing in my duty if I did.

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS (SALARIES)

3.38 a.m.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, lichen): I have learned over the years to appreciate so highly the devotion of the servants of this House to this free Parliament of ours that I would wish to apologise for keeping them so late if it were not for the gravity of the grievance I raise tonight, and the fact that this is one of the most precious occasions of the Parliamentary year.
I think also that hon. Members will agree with me when I say that in the midst of a long sitting like this one it might be an appropriate occasion for a back bencher to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how much we appreciate your own inestimable services to Parliament in the Chair, at whatever hour of the day we choose to keep you sitting.
I also want to say how grateful I am to the Minister of Education for being here, and also to express gratitude to my two hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). I do not like attacking a man behind his back, and as I propose to attack the Minister tonight, it is right that he should be here. The fact that both Front Benches


are occupied is some indication of the seriousness of the issue.
Last week, the Minister told the Burnham Committee that he refused to accept its freely negotiated salaries increase for the teaching profession; that the £47½ million which was accepted by both sides must be reduced to £42 million, and that the elaborate system of differentials built up inside that global sum, a system which has been built on years of hard bargaining, experience and especially based on the fight of the teaching profession for a decent basic professional scale, must be swept away and replaced by differentials devised by himself.
Over a quarter of a million teachers in the country, most of them lifelong supporters of the Government, to my regret, are outraged by the right hon. Gentleman's decision. The profession is utterly united, the only differences of opinion among teachers being whether the £47½ million itself was not too low a figure for an adequate professional scale, and also about the way in which their unanimous repudiation of the proposed reduction should be expressed.
I should be failing in my duty to education and to the profession which I had the honour of serving before I came to the House if I did not try to convey to the Minister and to the House the bitter resentment of the teaching profession and the dangers to education itself if the right hon. Gentleman pursues the course that at present he seems to be pursuing. I want to urge him this morning to alter his decision.
The Burnham Committee has functioned effectively for forty-one years. It is one of the excellent instruments set up in this century for public servants, local government workers and Civil Service workers, and, indeed, for all kinds of groups of workers and their employers to negotiate wage and salary agreements. To the Burnham Committee during the last forty years local government has sent some of its most able and enlightened voluntary public servants. The Teachers' Panel, as the Minister knows, is led by an outstanding man with an international reputation in the education world for ability, courage and character.
The Burnham Committee itself consists of representatives in equal numbers of the teaching profession, on the one

hand, and the local authorities on the other, presided over by an impartial chairman. Its record over the last forty years has been one of distinguished chairmen. There are three partners in the matter of teachers' salaries—the teachers, the local authorities and the Minister of Education, and the latter two foot the bill in about equal proportions.
I have no doubt that during the forty years' existence of the Burnham Committee Governments have whispered from time to time to the local authorities the kind of maximum figure that the Government would tolerate. But never before in the history of the Burnham Committee have a Government interfered in the present manner. Never has an award been rejected. Never have a Government set themselves up as a body competent to do the detailed work of the Burnham Committee.
I find it difficult to speak temperately of the grave significance of this interference. When the Minister's colleague, an earlier Minister of Health, rejected in December, 1957, a Whitley Council award the Medical World Newsletter of that month said:
Of course, the Minister himself is no more responsible than the unfortunate Sputnik dog"—
this was the first dog, the one that is still voyaging through space—
The day is long past when a Minister of Health carried any real responsibility for his own decisions. He now moves in a fixed orbit pre-determined by his master the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His function is merely to carry the can and be the scapegoat in case of trouble. He has our sympathy.
For "Minister of Health" read the present Minister of Education and we have an exact description of the present position.
Some years ago the block grant placed local authorities and the Minister fairly and squarely in the hands of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Now by this action the process is carried a stage further. The Minister of Education is abdicating to the Treasury the little power he had left to be a good employer. I believe in local local government. This Government are destroying it. By this latest action the Treasury tears up a second negotiated settlement and sets itself up as capable of deciding even


the detailed way in which the global sum which it seeks to force on the Burnham Committee shall be shared out. I respect the competence of the Treasury and admire the work of the Ministry of Education, but neither Department is qualified to do the work which local authorities have devoted themselves to, often under great difficulty, during the past forty years. There is a steady depreciating by this Government of the devoted labours of professional and voluntary workers in the local government field. More and more power is being transferred from county hall to the Cabinet, and more and more power is being transferred from members of the Cabinet to the Treasury. This is from a Government who always profess that they want to give greater freedom to local authorities.
This week Education is right when it bitterly says:
The days of education as a local government service would appear to be numbered.
Does not the Minister share my view that, if this statement is right, it would be a disaster to the great marriage of local and national government that we have built over the past fifty years in education? First, then, in the Minister's action there is a grave challenge to local authorities. Last Wednesday the local authorities decided to stand firm with the teachers. Both sides agreed to the £47½ million negotiated figure and both of them together refused to accept the instruction of the Minister to make the cut of £5½ million which he demanded. I believe that at their meeting this morning, in about six hours' time, they will stand firm again, as the teachers decided to do last Saturday.
The Minister and hon. Members, of whom I am pleased to see so many at this early hour of the morning, may be interested to hear the resolution passed unanimously by the executive of the National Union of Teachers last Saturday morning:
The Executive of the National Union of Teachers bitterly regrets the action of the Minister of Education in summarily rejecting the proposals negotiated by the Burnham Committee, and the more so since they fall far short of the teachers' claim and were only accepted with great reluctance in a time of economic crisis.

It considers that Sir David Eccles' letter, which limits increases to £42 million and suggests a re-distribution in a different way from that recommended by fifty-two teacher and local authority representatives closely in touch with the needs of the schools, completely denies the principles on which negotiations have been conducted in the Burnham Committee in the forty years of its history. Such action is deeply resented.
In these circumstances, the Executive instructs its representatives on the Burnham Committee to inform the Authorities' Panel at next Wednesday's meeting that it can take no part in distributing the £42 million in the manner dictated by the Minister, nor agree to any reduction of the increase previously recommended to the Minister.
Let nobody think that this is merely a teachers' battle. Already the civil servants have seen the danger sign. Yesterday's Daily Telegraph carried this statement from the Society of Civil Servants:
The Society will take whatever steps are needed to safeguard negotiating machinery. Pay in the public sector lags behind, and the Society sees no justification for penalising public services.
I hope that the N.A.L.G.O. will also see the threat, and that all non-Government workers who take part in wage negotiating bodies will rise to challenge this new claim which the Government are making in the action of the Minister of Education; this claim that they can override Whitley Councils, Burnham Committees, and all the elaborate wage negotiating instruments which we have been setting up for the past fifty years. I hope that they will get together in resisting the action of the Government.
I wish to keep party politics out of what I say tonight, but I cannot avoid mentioning one simple fact. Last week one Hampshire gentleman sold land which he bought for £950 thirty years ago for £33,000—one single transaction, probably tax-free, in which a fantastic reward is earned for ownership only, and simply because planning permission has been given to build on that piece of land. That single transaction earned the owner more than almost any teacher, any civil servant, any local Government worker, any miner, any engineer, earns by a lifetime of labour for the community. In reference to correspondence in this week's London evening newspapers, I interpose that the £1,250 teacher who has been the subject of discussion gets by no means the typical wage or salary of a teacher.
When we reward in such fantastic measure the landowner as compared with those who are working for the community, I think that our values are plumb crazy. How can we meet the grave challenge which both sides of the House admit we have to meet today to save Britain's economy when the Government make it vastly profitable for the speculator and the landowner, and at the same time turn to lop off £5½ million from salary increases, freely negotiated, to a profession which everybody in the House, and almost everybody in the country, admits has long been underpaid? We give the greatest rewards in Britain to those who do the least for the nation, and then expect to hold our place in a highly competitive world.
Monday's Daily Mail contained an interesting public opinion poll, certain features of which cannot have given very much satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government. I will not mention those tonight, but this poll showed that when people were asked whether they supported the Government's attack on teachers, only 27 per cent. agreed with the Government, while 66 per cent. disagreed. Public opinion is with the teachers, and if there is to be a struggle —and as one who cherishes education I hope that there will not be a struggle —public opinion will be a vital factor in that struggle.
I appeal to the Minister. He and I differ very deeply on certain basic attitudes to education, as both he and the House know. But his second stay at the Ministry has won him golden opinions from educationists. I would not go so far as Professor Vaizey, who recently wrote of him as
a Minister of outstanding ability whose record ranks with Forster and Butler",
but his achievements in education are of no mean value.
It is only two years ago that he was cheered to the echo at the annual conference of the National Union of Teachers for an inspiring speech on the work which he and the teachers hand in hand were going to do. I am certain that that spontaneous tribute from the teaching profession must have deeply moved and pleased him. It is no secret to say that he would get no such reception if he attended the extraordinary

conference which the teaching profession proposes to hold on 30th September.
I believe that it would be lamentable if this Minister were compelled to go down in history as a Minister who was made to spoil a very fine record of service to education by embittering the teachers in order that the Chancellor, who flung away money to the Surtax payers in his first Budget this year, could clutch that £5,500,000 from members of the teaching profession who will never get into the Surtax-paying range. Or that, as the country is beginning to think of him as a Fisher, he should end his career as Minister of Education as a Geddes, with the difference that at any rate Geddes was not called on to apply the axe to his own great work in education.
Again I put to the Minister a quotation from Education. This week it states:
To take it out of the teaching staff is shortsighted and extravagantly mean.
Education suffers when the teacher suffers. An attack on the teacher is an attack on education as a whole. In fact the latest developments this week have proved that that is literally true, because the attack on the salary of teachers has been immediately followed by a circular to local authorities announcing economies in the building programme for schools for 1962–63.
I have a feeling that party discipline, quite properly, drove many hon. Members opposite last week regretfully to support the attack on teachers' salaries as part of the Government's general strategy, just as I have a feeling that the Minister must have strained his own loyalty to the Government and to the great educational service when he decided to destroy by a single act the good-will which existed between him and his 250,000 employees, most of them good, simple, foolish Conservatives. I would urge both him and hon. Members opposite to reconsider what they are threatening to do to education, because for the harm done this autumn and winter the Minister will have to accept full responsibility.
The teachers feel that they have already responded to the Chancellor's economy drive. Like other citizens they suffer from the other measures which he has introduced in his £200 million


cut in national expenditure. Moreover, the teachers had decided by a majority that the proposed £47½ million was not enough, and until the Chancellor's statement they had determined to insist on more. They accepted the Burnham award only with reluctance at the last minute and only because of the economic crisis.
The teachers have been underpaid all this century. I read with conflicting emotions the words of tribute paid by Member after Member to the teaching profession in the 1918 Second Reading debate on the great Fisher Act. On 13th March, 1918, Sir Henry Craik said:
We have, as Scott somewhere said 'treated the schoolmaster as we would treat the deerhound. We have kept him starved that he may be more alert to bring down the quarry'.
He went on:
I claim for the teacher that it is essential to improve his position if we are to have good education and I submit that discontent among the teachers is a source of serious social danger."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1918; Vol. 104, c. 364.]
But little has been done, in spite of the numerous tributes in words paid in 1918, to improve the professional status and professional well-being of the teachers during the past forty years beyond the improvement in the lot of the citizens which has come from the building up of the nation's economy.
It has been a British custom all my lifetime, whenever there is to be an economy drive, to level the first blow at the teachers and at education, and teachers have fought all through those years for a decent professional salary scale. They have never had one. Even if their original claim, not for the £47½ million which they negotiated, had been conceded, their final position would have been inferior to that of a doctor, a lawyer, a dentist, and a policeman, not to mention the speculator and the property owner and company promoter.
In the 1918 debate, a Scottish Member said,
… while I for one, would not for a moment belittle the industry of money-making, I think the industry of man-making is infinitely more important, and those who are engaged in it ought to receive infinitely greater support than they do at the present time. I would like to see the teaching profession so raised in the estimation of the people that to join in it would be regarded as one of the highest privileges that any man or women could enjoy.… We

shall never get the best out of the child unless we can get the best out of the teacher."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March. 1918; Vol. 104. c. 760–61.]
I am deeply concerned about the bitter sense of frustration and anger which permeates the teaching profession. It cannot be good for education. It cannot be good for education if the leaders of Burnham, both sides of which have so much to give to education itself, should now be doomed to devote their talents to fighting over salaries and to resisting the Government —talents which they ought to be devoting to the exciting task of educational development and expansion.
I say to the Minister that he cannot run the educational system which the best of both sides want for this nation if the key people in the system—the class teachers, the head teachers—are being turned cynical and bitter by the contrast between the esteem in which society professes to hold them and its willingness to make them the first victims of a new Geddes axe.
I commend to the Minister, who loves good books, the sad, cynical and famous French comedy, "Topaze." I am always anxious about the impact of cheap commercialism in the society in which we live on our children. I shall be even more concerned if the teachers themselves are corrupted, as the schoolmaster Topaze was corrupted in Pagnol's comedy, by the attitude of the Government to what I believe to be one of the key professions of the country.
Yesterday I received from my old school the terminal school magazine, which contained an appeal to all old boys of the school to help the school in its desperate search for science masters for next September. Every two years an old boy of my school whom I taught years ago—now a scientist in America— comes to London to buy for America young British scientific brains. English education needs the best brains that Britain can provide. America is prepared to buy them from us and to deprive our schools of them.
This year there are more over-sized senior classes than there have ever been this century. Next year sees another— I hope the last—crisis in the matter of teacher supply. The profession for which I am pleading has borne the brunt


of the burden created by educational advance itself, by the problem of crowded classrooms, by the bulge, followed by a second bulge, to be followed, it is now clear, by a third bulge in the years ahead, and by secondary education for all; and next year many of those who thought that they might now find the size of classes being reduced will find that there will be a crisis again.
In spite of the difficulties, this underpaid profession has achieved great things for Britain, as the Minister not only knows but has generously acknowledged in speech after speech in the House and up and down the country at all times until his unfortunate decision of last week. Most important of all, our teachers are the answer—apart from their pupils, the most important answer—to the long-term aspects of the problem with which the Chancellor is confronted. On the quality of their work both intellectually and morally the whole future of Britain depends. In my judgment, the Chancellor ought not to be allowed to jeopardise the future for an immediate and paltry gain to the Treasury.
I care more for children than for anything else in the world. The months ahead may be fun for them, if there is a spate of strikes, whether the strikes be national, unofficial, sporadic or localised. It may be fun for them to be away from school, but the harm which could be done to the children would be incalculable. I hope that there will be no strikes, but it is difficult to argue with an angry man or with an angry profession which feels itself unjustly treated. There is no teacher worth his salt who does not give in time and in work inside and out of school much more than the law compels him to give. It would be a tragedy if the Government's mean action were to dry up in the teaching profession all that wonderful voluntary work.
Last week, the Minister said that there was an impasse which he hoped that both sides would overcome. But he has created the impasse. He can end it tomorrow. I urge him, for the sake of the great service for which he is responsible, to realise the gravity of the present situation. I urge hon. Members opposite to take note of the representations which they will receive from members

of the teaching profession in their constituencies. Unique and unprecedented as this occasion is, the Minister will have to pass an Act of Parliament to carry out his decision if he is determined to reject the Burnham award. That is the measure of what he is doing.
I have before paid tribute to the local authorities for their willingness to undertake financial burdens for education, even though those burdens press heavily on the ratepayers. So far in this matter of the award to the teachers, they are ahead of the Government. There is still time for the Government to line up with the local authorities and to accept, as Governments always have done in the end during the past forty years, the findings of the freely negotiating body, the Burnham Committee. If not, I fear very much that the outlook for education this winter may be grave indeed.

4.8 a.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I also offer my apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the staff for speaking at this early hour of the morning. I always seem to be apologising for that reason. Nevertheless, I felt that this was an occasion on which I should take part in the debate.
After the Chancellor made his economic statement last week, the country having been geared to expect very tough measures, people wondered what had happened. They did not at that time detect in the Chancellor's speech the kind of measures which they had been led to expect. Now, of course, it is quite clear that a great many decisions will have to be taken. I do not complain about that because I fully support the Chancellor in recognising the need for the economic stability which is absolutely essential for this country, but I believe that many people will be involved—unexpectedly, in the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, at any rate—in having to give reluctant acquiescence to measures which will be put forward.
It is extraordinary that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has taken the step that he has—I am not commenting on it at the moment—it has been left to an hon. Member on the Opposition side to raise the issue directly with by right hon. Friend at just after four o'clock in the morning and that


this is the first opportunity that Parliament has had to discuss what is, after all, a new and unprecedented decision on the part of my right hon. Friend. That causes me great and deep concern. Whether or not one agrees with my right hon. Friend, I should have thought that it would be in the interests of the Government for him to have been given an opportunity to come before the House at a normal time to put his case.
I have no complaint against my right hon. Friend, because I think that he has been put in a difficult position. If, however, as a Government, we are to give, as, I believe, we are capable of doing, a lead to the country in this economic crisis, we cannot do it when the first important step is being discussed in the way that it must be discussed. But for the fact that we are here with my right hon. Friend ready to reply on an issue raised by the hon. Member for Southamption, Itchen (Dr. King) from the Opposition benches, I would not have taken part in this debate at this hour in the morning. I repeat that I am very sorry for my right hon. Friend.
I cannot understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have made the brief reference that he made in the economic debate to the teaching profession. It would have been much wiser if, immediately following my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, responsible Ministers—not only my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, but Ministers from other Departments who will be concerned in dealing with this economic crisis—had all been permitted to come and make their observations.
If the Government are being tough with the people, at least they must face them and tell them exactly what they intend to do. The people can either accept or reject. I have been long enough in politics to know that when there is tangible danger, one can obtain the support of the people; but they must be trusted and given leadership.
I am deeply concerned that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for whom I have great respect and admiration, should have decided to make such a laconic statement —that is, perhaps, the best word to describe it—concerning a Department

about which he is not qualified to comment in detail and, at the same time, to deprive my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education of the opportunity of arguing his own case. It was a great pity and a great mistake. At least, those of us who are here tonight appreciate that my right hon. Friend has come himself. I hope that he will be able to put forward his arguments for the decision which he has had to take.
That leads me to another point which I want to make, because if I do not make it now I cannot see when I shall be able to do so. There are other Ministers involved in the matter of negotiating machinery and I think that, in the interests of the country as a whole, we should hear something about what is in the mind of the Treasury. I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his place, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. That is tremendously important and I shall say why in a moment.
Right throughout the whole structure of the country there must be hundreds of thousands of people wondering what their future is going to be. We have been given no lead except the decision of the Minister of Education on the Burnham award and we really want to know if Parliament is to rise far the Recess with all these people left in a state of anxiety and conflict—people among whom there are no doubt many who are willing to co-operate with the Government in bringing about economic stability. I have no quarrel about the short-term or the long-term plans, but the Government must let the country know a great deal more about What they have in mind.
My mind goes back to 1931 when the country was very easily led into supporting some very drastic measures. All the people who accepted them are to be commended, but the country did accept those measures in order to reestablish financial and economic stability.
There was a Question and Answer in the House on Monday, and I mention this because there are hundreds of thousands of people involved in the National Health Service who also will be wondering what the future holds for them. The Question was asked by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr.


Kenneth Robinson). He asked the Minister of Health
… what new instructions he has given or proposes to give to his representatives on the various Whitley Councils in the light of Government policy on wages and salaries in the public service; what action he intends to take on Whitley Council agreements involving increased remuneration submitted for his approval; and whether claims will be allowed to go to arbitration as hitherto in the event of disagreement between the two sides".
The Minister of Health answered,
I have nothing to add at present to the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer".
That was pretty neat, because my recollection is that in the Chancellor's statement nothing was said about the Health Service, but only about education. But then the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, said,
But is the Minister not aware that within the Health Service there are many of the most under-paid categories of skilled and trained staff? It would be most unfortunate and grossly unfair if they were caught in the wage freeze in the public sector which the Chancellor adumbrated last week".
All the Minister of Health then said was
I have nothing to add".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1961; Vol. 645, col. 927.]
He may have had nothing to add, but but I have quite a lot. I do not think that, when one has a situation such as we have got in the National Health Service, it should be left at that. I think that people in the Health Service of all grades, of all categories, of all professions, have got a right to know what is going on. I fully recognise the difficulty which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in. It was very difficult in the Parliamentary timetable and in the scene as it was set, with the Budget and Finance Bill, and the economic statement and economic debate, to come out with a full-scale plan involving everybody in the public sector, but I do not think that it is fair to the country—and, of course, the same goes for the private sector as well—for millions of people, as there are if we add the private to the public sector, discussing whether there is an intention of interfering with arbitration, with the industrial courts and the wages boards—for instance, for agricultural wages. All this ought to have been put in some perspective by Ministers to the country and to this House.
I resent it on behalf of those whom I try to represent. One of my most ardent supporters, a very great supporter of the Conservative Party, a very responsible councillor of my own local authority, the County Borough of Tyne-mouth, who has never, so far as I know, even criticised the Government before, said to me what a pity it was that the Chancellor had made that comment about the teachers. Well, as I say, there are other people, too. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education cannot answer for the National Health Service, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will convey to their respective Ministers exactly what the position is and what I imagine is the feeling of all Members of the House over this matter.
I want to develop very quickly—I am not going to be much longer—just one or two points about the Health Service. I think that it is very important that we should know what claims are in the pipeline and whether the ones which are in the process of coming out of the pipeline are to be dealt with under the wage freeze and what is going to happen to those sections, of which there are many, in the National Health Service in which shortage of trained staff is having a bad effect on the proper administration and running of the Health Service as a whole. Are we, for instance, in the section of the professions supplementary to medicine, going to say, when we desperately want teachers in psysiotherapy and occupational therapy that we are not going to offer any inducements to try to get recruits either from training or teaching, because of the wage freeze? I may be wrong. It may be in the national interest that we should say we are not going to do a thing about them, but I think it ought to be known. Are we going to let the Health Service in many ways fail to recruit staff or are we going to make exceptions? I give just one example.
I sometimes think that it is all very well for Ministers to talk about the people of this country pulling up their socks and working harder—with which I agree—but I think that if the general public are asked to pull up their socks and to work harder, occasionally Government Departments should do


that themselves, before they start lecturing the general public.
It is well known that there is a shortage of teachers of physiotherapy and that it is almost impossible to man new training schools. I understand that for nine months physiotherapists have been looking round the country for sites for new schools, but they cannot establish schools unless there are the trained staffs to run them. I am a member of the Council of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists and I know what is going on and how anxious the Council feels about these matters. A very important conference of senior, high-ranking physiotherapists will be held in October and two tutors have been appointed, one in education and the other on the technical side. Application has been made to the Minister for salaries to be paid in respect of those appointments. One salary has been fixed according to the Society's recommendation but the other salary recommended by the Society is unacceptable.
Can anyone go to appeal against this discrimination? Nobody knows, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will make a note of this and will tell her Minister. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in turn will see the Chancellor. I hope that it will be noted that the physiotherapists are seriously discussing calling off the conference which I have mentioned unless satisfaction is forthcoming on this issue. To call off the conference would certainly not be in the interest of the Health Service as a whole. It certainly would not be in the interest of trying to train more physiotherapists. If the Parliamentary Secretary went round all the great hospitals she would find that there is a great shortage of staff in the "supplementary to medicine" group. I want to know what is happening about this.
I also want to know what is happening about the Younghusband Report on Local Authority Health and Welfare Services. I would have liked to have seen the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, present. What are we doing about crime prevention? I understand from what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said in the House yesterday that the build-

ing of hospitals will not be affected by economy measures, because that is above-the-line expenditure. I suppose that the same must apply to remand homes and detention centres. But what is the use of having these buildings if we do not have the trained staffs to run them? It is extremely disturbing that we have had no leadership in these matters.
I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will not be replying to the debate, because that is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education. It is his night. I only wish that he could have had a day on the subject.
I want to know from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is happening about the arbitration machinery in the private sector. People employed in mines and factories and in all the public and semipublic sectors of the nationalised industries want to know what is happening. When will the Chancellor be in a position to tell us? One finds that over a very long period in the industrial courts and the arbitration courts awards have nearly always been made and, though not perhaps in every case, in the main the increases awarded in salaries and wages have been justified. All those people getting higher wages have gone to make up the affluent society of which the Prime Minister and I are very proud. But what is now going to happen? I will not talk about the small fixed income groups tonight, but I mention them so that the Financial Secretary will not forget them.
I do not consider that it represents leadership on an important matter of this kind if we have to discuss the first step in the long-term planning—that is how I interpret this new arrangement with regard to the Burnham Committee — at this time in the morning. Nor do I think that it ought to have been left to the hon. Member to raise the subject. This is a matter which should have been put by the Government, and I am very disappointed that they have not done so.

4.31 a.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I apologise for rising at this hour, but I want to add my voice in appeal to the Minister of Education to reconsider the position that he has arrived at in connection with the agreed


Burnham amounts for teachers. I say "reconsider" because I am not sure—here I am in some agreement with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—that the Government yet understand the full implications of what they are doing.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Nor do the Opposition.

Mr. Loughlin: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to interrupt me?

Mr. Wilson: I was wondering whether some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends understand what they are doing.

Mr. Loughlin: That remains to be seen in a moment or so.
I do not know whether the Government appreciate fully that they can be charged with attempting to provoke a head-on clash with the trade unions. We are not here dealing solely with the question of the Burnham Committee; we are not dealing solely with the Whitley Councils or the nationalised industries. Once there is interference of this kind in freely negotiated agreements, it means that the Government are challenging the whole structure of our industrial relations. Take wages councils, for example; they have Government-appointed members. Once there is failure to agree in the administrative committee, the Government-appointed members then become the arbiters and decide whether the application by the trade union shall be agreed to or not.
Once the Government start giving instructions to the independent members of these negotiating bodies, they are placing them in such a position that there can be no question of free negotiations. In the negotiating structure we have built up, once there is failure to agree there are two courses of action open. Either the unions and employers accept a sense of responsibility and refer the matter to arbitration, or the unions take strike action. But if the Government in the first instance have determined that there are to be no wage increases, or give a general direction that there shall not be, what confidence has a union in going to arbitration? None at all.
The only alternative for workers in this position, having failed to establish an agreement with the employers, is to take strike action. Is that what the

Government want? If they know beforehand that the Government have given a direction to the independent or Government-appointed members of a negotiating body, what point is there in the unions submitting the case to arbitration? They will know at once that if they do so they have no chance of securing an increase in wages or a reduction in the working week or an improvement in general conditions.
If they know they cannot go to arbitration, then the structure of our industrial relations, built up over a long period, collapses. The only alternative the unions have in such circumstances—whether they represent teachers, or health workers, or engineers or miners— is withdrawal of labour. But there is an additional factor. What about those who, like the teachers, have arrived already at a position where the employers and the unions have reached agreement for an increase in wages? There is no question of taking the matter to arbitration because the Minister has said that he will not countenance an agreement over and above the fixed amount that he states, and there is no question of strike action against the employer because the employer has already conceded the demand made by the workpeople.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: What is the hon. Gentleman's definition of an employer? Is not someone who pays 60 per cent. of the wages in part an employer?

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the machinery has been in existence for a considerable time. It is a little late in the day to start using that type of argument.
If the employer has agreed to the increase in wages and the only alternative is for the workpeople to go on strike, who do they strike against? They strike against the Government. If we get the situation where the teachers and the health people combine, as they are now suggesting they will, and if we get a multiplicity of people in precisely this position, as we are liable to do, then it becomes a political action, not an industrial action, provoked by the Government.
That is a dangerous position for any Government to place people in. It is


indirectly provoking people to revolution. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) smiles, but let me tell him that if the Government attempt to persist in a policy of wage restraint during the next six or nine months, or even in the next three to six months, with the applications for wage increases which are already in the pipeline and ready for submission, they will be creating a situation in which work-people from many trades and industries will combine, which may be as dangerous as the 1926 situation.
It is as simple as that. The Government ought to take cognisance of what is going on and what by their actions they are provoking. I am not exaggerating the position. The T.U.C. has made it perfectly clear that the trade unions are not prepared to accept a policy of wage restraint in these circumstances.
We have here a situation where the Government are, in the case of the teachers, adopting a line of action which can as yet, with a bit of good sense, be withdrawn. As I have said on previous occasions from these benches, I can visualise circumstances when in the interests of the nation it may well be very desirable for the trade unions to say to their memberships that a policy of wage restraint is desirable both in the interests of their members and of the nation as a whole. If the Government create the psychosis in which it would be possible for that to be done, even though they have got us in a mess after ten years, it might be possible for the trade union movement to make a substantial contribution to getting them out of the mess. That is desirable because, apart from the general principle and the formation of a policy to be followed, the amount involved here is £5 million. Whilst the Government have got us in a terrible mess, we are not so impoverished as not to be able to stand £5 million.
The Government would be well advised to recognise the damage they are prepared to do to good industrial relations and to the structure of free wage negotiation which we have built up. The only difference between free man and slave is that the free man has the right to withdraw his labour. Many

members of the Conservative Party have been tempted in recent months to challenge our right to withdraw our labour. We shall see, because in the next few months we may well find that the Government have ideas about legislating against strikes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I shall be glad to see those hon. Members who are now saying "Nonsense" in the Division Lobbies when the occasion arises. If the Government place the trade unions in the position of having to strike against the Government, we shall take that as a challenge. We shall not forgo any of our rights. I know the trade unions well. If strike action against the Government is the only way in which we can defend our rights to be free men, we shall remain free men.

4.47 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I have no intention of delaying the House for more than two minutes, but the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has provoked me. He made several remarks in my direction because I shook my head. When I intervened to point out that I did not think that every hon. Member on his side of the House appreciated what the point was, I was not alluding to any deep, dark plot to smash the trade unions or stop negotiating machinery, or anything of the sort. That is a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination and has nothing to do with this case. I will leave it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to give the simple explanation of this point, which has nothing whatever to do with those things. Nobody has mentioned the position with regard to Scotland or what the Scottish teachers have been paid. That is probably much more to do with it than some of the deep plots of the hon. Gentleman's imagination. As for some plot on our part to smash the trade union movement, that is a long way from this subject. What we are debating is whether the increase in teachers' salaries should be that for which they have asked or the amount they have been offered.

4.49 a.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: We do not in these debates usually inflict upon the House a speech from the Opposition Front Bench. This is normally a


matter between the back benches on either side and the Government. However, we feel that this occasion is too serious for us to allow this to pass and to allow the House to go into recess without official comment on our part.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks of both my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). This is a very important situation in which we need far greater clarification. As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent either the Parliamentary Secretary from replying to the physiotherapy points, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury explaining the Government's policy in relation to wages.
It is quite inequitable that teachers should be the guinea pigs for managed wages, if that is to be the Government's policy. For a number of years economists have been accusing people on our side of the House, saying that we cannot have a planned economy unless we are also prepared to have some plan for wages. Are the Government beginning to be converted to long-term planning, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated, and bringing in planned wages by a side door? If they are, we should be told.
We have had one example this year on a minor scale, over the payroll regulator, of ill-digested thought from the Treasury. If the Government fix a global sum for the teachers, why should they not fix a global sum for other industries and professions and say, "This is the amount which we believe can be afforded for this service or industry, and within this you have to sort out your wages policy"?
Something similar has been tried in one or two countries. This would be a very interesting departure for a Conservative Government, but if they have such thoughts they ought to come to the House and have a proper discussion of the principle of the matter and not put it on the teachers, which is what appears to be happening at the moment.
I will say more about the whole matter of teachers and the situation with regard to the Burnham Committee, but there is one point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton

Itchen (Dr. King) in his eloquent speech made a passing reference, and that is the circular which has just been issued from the Ministry of Education concerning capital expenditure.
It was only on 8th June that a lengthy administrative memorandum came out of the Ministry of Education on building procedures and so on. It was only quite recently that the Minister of Education addressed the Education Authorities' Conference and told them that they were to have greater freedom in expenditure on minor works, and what we rather lightheartedly call minor works can be of extreme importance in individual schools in promoting the happiness and efficiency of the teachers and pupils in those schools.
As we said in the recent debate on education, one of the ways of raising the efficiency of teachers is to see that there are adequate provisions in the schools to prevent the teachers from having to waste a lot of time in completely unsatisfactory buildings. Having as recently as 8th June sent out an administrative memorandum on this whole question, on 28th July a circular was sent by the Ministry to local authorities telling them that as far as minor works were concerned their new-found freedom was to be whittled away, and there was to be a stop until 1st October.
That may not be very serious, but it is rather alarmist language to say that unless one can show that "the local system of education will break down," one is not to do anything which has not already been contracted for. Subsequent to that date, all the centrally determined works are to be cut by half, and all the locally determined works are to be considerably reduced. The period for which this reduction is to take place is up to March, 1963. In other words, we can fairly ask how long this crisis will last.
On major works, we are told that there is to be a revision and re-organisation in favour of science and so on. We can hardly judge that before we know precisely what is proposed. So far as I know nothing has been said yet about the teacher training colleges, but I should like it firmly on the record from the Minister that there is to be no disturbance whatever in the expansion programme for the colleges.
We have had all this before. There is nothing new about this. I have here one of the little aides-mémoire with which all Parliamentary candidates are familiar, and which we had prepared for the last General Election. It was headed "Stop and Go Policy." There is nothing new about this but it is extremely disturbing to local authorities and their staffs to have this stop and go policy in the building programme. I do not want to weary the House at this hour by retailing the whole story, but we started off in 1951—I may say after the 1951 election, and early in 1952—when the local authorities were told that they must cut down on youth work and the reorganisation of all-age schools and so on. That lasted until 1954 when we got within sight of a General Election.
Then the local authorities were told, "Everything is all right. You can expand again. Our concern for education is revived, and now we are going to put on a good face to the country." Then we had the 1955 election, as we all know. Then we come to the 1957 crisis and the education authorities are told that once more they must cut down on capital expenditure and postpone their plans and so on and so forth. When we get to 1958–59 the authorities are told, in the official language, that greater flexibility will be permitted—in other words, that they can start dressing the window all over again.
Presumably the Government are telling us today that we shall be restricted up to 1963, until we are approaching the next election. The Government say, "After that, of course, we shall have to do some more window dressing and we shall tell you once more that we are concerning ourselves with education and you will be able to go ahead. Meanwhile your minor works are drastically reduced."
I repeat, there is nothing new in this, though it is extremely serious for those of us who are concerned with educational progress in this country. On the other hand, the Burnham situation is new. The Burnham Committee in its present form was established in the 1944 Act by this House. Its principles were laid down and the manner in which negotiations were to be conducted. Therefore, it seems to me that if any

changes are to be made, the place where they should be discussed is in this House of Commons. One assumes that the Minister has in mind fresh legislation, because at the present time he is not empowered to intervene in Burnham negotiations. He can accept or reject, but he has no power to intervene, as I understand it. In this case he is in a different position from the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, if he is now saying that we are to have positive Government intervention, not merely in the global sum as a part of a possible national wages policy, but also in the distribution of that global sum, that is something very different from the conception of the Burnham Committee enshrined in the 1944 Act and referred to by his predecessor, the present Home Secretary, in a speech at, I believe, the first meeting of the Burnham Committee. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee:
You are an independent body free to choose what seems to you best.
That freedom has been taken away. I repeat that I think we should be told by the Minister that he is going to bring in legislation in the next Session to alter the 1944 Act in this respect, because I do not think that he is entitled otherwise to intervene in the way in which he is suggesting. We ought to have a clear indication of his intentions in this matter of principle.
I do not want to go into the whole question, properly raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), of how this may relate to Government policy in other directions. By starting at the side door with the teachers, uncertainty has been caused in many other occupations and professions about the Government's intentions.
It is true that £42 million is a substantial increase and that the amount which is being withheld, £5½ million, is relatively small. There has been a reference to Scottish teachers, and in his letter to the Burnham Committee it seemed that the Minister was thinking in terms of parity with Scottish teachers, but I remind the House that the Scottish teachers are already enjoying such increases as they obtained; they started on 1st July. The increase proposed for teachers in England and Wales is not to


take effect until 1st January, 1962. There is a six months' gap. If the Minister were thinking that the increase in England and Wales should take effect from the same date as that on which the increases were paid in Scotland, that would be some improvement. If the Minister said now, "I do not approve of a higher increase than that awarded to the Scottish teachers but it should take effect from the same date", that would be something.

Dr. King: The principle would still be bad.

Mrs. White: The principle would still be bad, but I am suggesting a practical way out of the mess into which the Government have brought us. If we are faced with a deadlock in the teaching profession it will be serious. The Government may say that they have the last word and the whip-hand. The right hon. Gentleman once made an unfortunate remark, "Treat them mean and keep them keen". I do not accuse him of saying it about the teachers because he is too much concerned for the success of his Department to wish to do that, but if the whole teaching profession feels that it has been let down by the Government it is a very serious situation.
It is a very few days since we had a general debate on education in which the Minister referred to educational advance and said, quite rightly, that even with present policies the cost of education will be more year by year. He said:
Is the country willing to pay the bill? I think it is provided that we can always show that we are getting value for money".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July 1961; Vol. 644, c. 905.]
These were brave words.

Mr. William Ross: He has had second thoughts.

Mrs. White: If the Minister believes what he said on 17th July one can only assume that he put up the best fight he could but was beaten by the Treasury. The sum concerned, £5½ million, is not in itself a vast amount. But for £5½ million, is it worth doing what the Minister is doing not merely to the teachers but to the standing of education in this country? The Observer last Sun-

day and various other serious commentators made it clear that everyone was coming round to the feeling that education at last would take a foremost place in our national expenditure. It was being recognised as a top service and not as a secondary service, as it has been regarded in the past. Everyone was ready to accept it as such, and the Minister was quite right to say that the country would pay the bill for education. People are appreciating its value.
Psychologically, the Government's attitude has done serious damage to the standing of educational endeavour, and it has aroused the bitter anger and resentment of the teaching profession, especially among the rank-and-file teachers who have to carry the burden in our primary and secondary modern schools, the ones who do not get the headships or the graded posts, the people who have to do the slogging job, day in and day out. They are the ones who feel really bitter because they are being asked to do a responsible job, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said in the economic debate, for less than any competent shorthand-typist will be paid in the City of London today. I ask the House to compare the sort of work done by a girl who has done nine to twelve months at a secretarial college with the work a teacher has to do in facing a class of forty children in a primary school. If asked the question, "Who should have the more pay?" every hon. Member would, I believe, say that the teacher should. But that is not the conclusion of the Minister.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth spoke of 1931 and said that people accepted sacrifices in the crisis of that time. I hope that we have not quite returned to 1931, and, in any case, people accepted the wrong sacrifices at that time which led the country into years of stagnation and put a brake on our economic progress. I believe that this action of the Government in refusing the teachers what has been agreed between them and the education authorities will have within its own field a similar braking effect upon educational progress. It will deter people from going into teaching. It will make those who are in teaching dissatisfied and frustrated.

5.8 a.m.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) was absolutely right in saying that the Government needed this opportunity to say a few things about this very important question. I agree entirely that it has been something of an embarrassment not to be able to come to the House and explain the facts of the case. The House will appreciate that, during the last few days, the Parliamentary timetable has been extremely full. I know that if my right hon. Friends could have given me the opportunity at a more suitable hour they would have done so. Therefore, I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) for bringing about what I hoped would happen.
Nobody regrets a dispute with the teachers on their salaries more than I do. With the help of many hon. Members, the hon. Member for lichen and many of my hon. Friends, I have tried for a number of years to arouse support among the public for education in this country, because it is clear that, in the scientific and technical world in which we live, education is essential, and for no country in the world more so than it is for Britain.
When one looks at the structure and the standards of our education, again I am on the record as always having put first an adequate supply of properly trained teachers as the pivot on which the whole system turns. The Government have no doubt that more teachers and better qualified teachers are the greatest single requirement of the schools and colleges. I say that once more only in order that hon. Members may not be under any illusion that in approaching this salary question I have not had in mind the gospel I have tried to preach for so long.
At the same time, it is not true that we have unlimited money at our disposal, or ever will have under any Government, to improve the education system. We shall be the prisoners of priorities for as long ahead as we can see. I said that in the debate which the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has quoted. If I remember aright, I said that I believed the public was willing to pay the rising bills for education provided that we got value for money and

provided we got our priorities right. That is the position on which we stand.
It is no less a fact that we are not in equal difficulty over the recuritment of all kinds of teachers or that the salaries of all teachers should on any rational estimate of the needs of the schools be improved equally. Given the number of places in the teacher training colleges, which number we are now in process of doubling, we have had, and we now have, no difficulty in finding suitable applicants for all of them. Indeed, the contrary is true. We are gradually but sensibly raising the entrance qualifications of students. So there is no comparison with the police, who were seriously undermanned with a large number of vacancies that could not be filled.
On the other hand, ever since I have been at the Ministry, I have been seriously perturbed by the level of salaries of the older teachers, of the teachers with special responsibilities, and those with higher qualifications. The hon. Member for Itchen mentioned the acute shortage of science teachers. I am sure that the attraction and the prestige of a profession is to a substantial extent a reflection of the way the higher posts are rewarded: the "plums" at the tap are the world's criterion of a profession's reputation, and we badly need more highly qualified teachers than we are getting today. Therefore, I was glad that the increase which could be offered to the teachers—it turns out to be £42 million—would be the highest ever made in a Burnham review.
Obviously, a sum of this very large size gives considerable scope for improvements, but we must spend the money to the best advantage. Of course, we all want an improvement on the basic scale, and I am particularly concerned that more should be done for the young men when they marry and have children. I welcome very much the Burnham Committee's idea of double increments at the right points in the scale which would benefit these men but will not apply to those young women who leave the schools with less than five years' service.
Many people have written to me to ask how it is that teachers, educationists and writers in the Press, all of whose business it is to instruct other people


how to describe accurately what is going on around them and to recognise truth from an error, can call a salary increase of £42 million a cut. We all have hopes that we cannot realise, but we do not call a reduction in unrealised hopes a cut.
I have been accused of interfering unduly with the Burnham machinery. It is, therefore, important that I should give in as clear language as possible the background to our decision that £42 million was the right sum to offer in present circumstances, and why we made the offer when we did and in the manner that we did.
As has been said tonight, an important factor in this matter which has not received much attention is what has happened north of the Border, in Scotland. Last April, the Scottish local authorities and teachers' representatives presented my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with an agreed proposal for an increase in teachers' salaries amounting to 18 per cent. My right hon. Friend used the powers which he possesses, and which I do not, to reject the 18 per cent., and proposed new scales amounting to a 12½ per cent. increase which, after further consultations, he increased to 14 per cent. This is the size of the increase which was settled for Scotland, early in the summer, before the financial crisis had become acute.
It has been alleged tonight that the Government did give a whisper to Burnham about the size of the increase; but this was no whisper. It was the plainest of plain hints that 14 per cent. was the maximum which could be added in present circumstances. Nevertheless, the Burnham Committee provisionally agreed on an increase of 16¼ per cent., costing £47½ million for the primary and secondary teachers in England and Wales. Now a proposed increase of this size, out of line with Scotland, naturally caused the Government great embarrassment and, furthermore, we noted with concern that at a general conference at Margate, the N.U.T. rejected the 16¼ per cent. increase as totally insufficient.
After this conference, no one could tell what would happen next in Burnham. We therefore had no agreed figure before us when it became necessary for the Chancellor to announce

measures to deal with the financial situation. One of the most important of these measures was a pause in salaries and wages in the whole of the public sector, and a call for a similar pause in the private sector. It appeared to the Government, as I am sure it does to the whole House, to be only fair that outstanding claims in the public sector should be cleared up before this pause began. Of these outstanding claims by far the largest were the Burnham proposals for a figure which was then unknown because of the N.U.T. rejection of the provisional agreement, but which obviously was not going to be less than £47½ million. Here, the timetable of the Burnham Committee is very important.
The Committee was not due to consider the situation following the rejection by the N.U.T. of the £47½ million until two days after the Chancellor's statement in this House. Now, it would surely have been wrong to have allowed the Committee to hold its meeting and try to arrive at fresh conclusions after the Government had announced their economic measure's if, in making his announcement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said nothing about teachers' salaries. In my view it would have been nothing short of dishonourable to have waited till after the Burnham Committee's meeting and Parliament had risen for the Summer Recess to make our decision public. Those are the reasons why teachers' salaries were specially mentioned in the Chancellor's statement and speech and why I told the representatives of the Burnham Committee the day after the statement precisely where the Government stood on the matter.
It is more than a little difficult to understand how anyone can talk about the teachers being singled out, or picked on, when an increase of £42 million, which becomes £53 million when it includes technical colleges and others concerned, is offered at this time. In fact this £42 million represents very substantial improvements on the present scales of salary, at least as good as the average increase in salaries in productive industry Which is 5·8 per cent, a year for 1959–60, the latest year for which I have figures. The offer of £42 million is almost 6½ per cent. a year.
I want to illustrate how good the £42 million offer is by one or two examples


which I can produce out of the application of this figure. A non-graduate teacher, two-year trained, aged 26, now gets £685 a year. Under the £42 million offer the figure could be £820. The head teacher of a primary school of 200 to 300 children—a non-graduate head teacher—now gets £1,305: he could get £1,540. A three-year trained graduate with a pass degree at 26 now gets £777 10s.; he could get £920. An honours degree graduate aged 40 who is head of a department in Grade E now gets £1,645: he could get £1,975. These examples, I assure the House, are picked at random; they are not specially favourable. They are calculated on the assumption that the increase in the differentials made in the provisional Burnham agreement is maintained and that the basic scale of two-year trained teachers rises from the present figure of £520 to £1,000, to £570 to £1,170, and that the double increments at the fifth and sixth year are maintained. I think that that does show that to call this offer a mean offer in any sort of way is very very far from the truth.
I have to come to a very serious feature of the present situation which has already been mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East, and that is that I have no power to do more than reject an agreed proposal by Burnham which for any reason the Government find unacceptable. Unless, therefore, the Burnham Committee is willing to submit to me salary increases worked out to reach a total of not more than £42 million in a full year nothing can happen and the teachers will get no increase at all. This is the last thing which the Government desire, and I very much hope that we shall not be driven to legislate in the autumn in order to have the authority to pay these very substantial increases represented by the £42 million.
A further consideration much in our minds—and this is nothing new; I have been thinking about it over the whole of the last year—is the embarrassment caused by the present method of conducting the Burnham negotiations. As the House knows, this Committee was established in days when prices were comparatively stable and changes in salaries were infrequent and small. Under such conditions it was unlikely that the Burnham Committee would ever recommend to the

Government increases of a size that conflicted with general financial policy, and I subscribe to the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen to the work which the Burnham Committee did throughout that period.
But now all this has changed, and as a result of full employment and a rapid growth in the economy, which unfortunately has been accompanied from time to time by inflationary pressures, we have a new situation. My right hon. and learned Friend said in his statement to the House last week that we have to face this situation, the solution to which has so far eluded us. We have now to work out a long-term policy for salaries and wages in the public sector based on the proposition, and I am quoting my right hon. and learned Friend's words, that
…increases in incomes must follow and not precede or outstrip increases in national productivity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1961; Vol, 645, c. 223.]
It is perfectly clear that if we are not able to do that we shall have one financial crisis after another.
Yesterday afternoon my right hon. and learned Friend told the local authority associations that during the pause in salaries and wages he would open discussions about the means to implement this long-term policy throughout the public sector, and the authorities told my right hon. and learned Friend that they would be glad to co-operate in these discussions. For my part, I have told the Burnham Committee that it is desirable that the Minister shall in future be associated with salary reviews in such a way that the Government's views on the size and general lines of the distribution of salary increases should be made known to the Committee at an early stage in the negotiations.

Mr. Loughlin: It means that there can be no negotiations.

Sir D. Eccles: This House is responsible to the taxpayers and taxpayers provide something like 12s. in the £ of all teachers' salaries. We cannot be indifferent to the amount which taxpayers are asked to pay or to the distribution of that amount among different classes of teachers.

Mr. Loughlin: If the Government are to make a fixed amount available for wage increases at an early stage—that is


before the negotiations begin—on what basis will negotiations take place?

Sir D. Eccles: On a very much better basis than they do now. The hon. Member does not understand the Burnham machinery. The Minister of Education has a statutory power under Section 89 of the Act to reject any agreed award put up to him. Therefore, the Minister already has the power to determine tie sum. What is wrong with the present situation is that he cannot use that power until after an immense amount of work has been done and all the salary scales have been arranged.

Mrs. White: Surely there is some point in what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is saying. If the Minister is to determine both the global sum and the method of its allocation, why have the elaborate machinery of Burnham? Why not just present both sides with a statement of what is to happen?

Sir D. Eccles: As I have pointed out, I shall ask the Burnham Committee to receive our views on the general lines of distribution. We want to be able to have discussions with the Burnham Committee in the course of the negotiations. Unless that is done, this House will be wasting public money, because the needs of the schools—this must be clear to hon. Members opposite—are not always the same as those of the Teachers' Panel which is asking for this or that relationship between the basic scale and the differentials.
It is perfectly clear that we have reached a situation now where our real shortages inside the teaching profession are in graduates. It is teachers of science, mathematics and other subjects of which we are really short. The Minister of Education has under the Act an overriding duty to ensure that the schools are efficiently run. How can I carry out that duty if the salary scales proposed will not, in my estimation, provide the kind of teachers that we want? This is a dilemma which has got to be resolved, not by dictatorship from the Minister, but by enabling the Minister's representatives to sit with the Burnham Committee at an early stage and point out what we know about the different shortages of teachers in the schools.
After all, the Minister of Education, with all his H.M.Is. to help him, with

the central position of the Ministry, is likely to know something about the real, urgent needs of the schools. At the moment we are not—[Interruption.]—I do not know what the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West is arguing about. I am trying to explain to the House where the Burnham Committee is weak today and where, from the point of view of the public interest, we ought to strengthen it.
I look forward now to a new chapter in salaries policy which will enable us to do two things that we cannot do at present. The first is to ensure that the total increases in any review do not outstrip the growth of the economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to tell us what he thinks the overall increase can be. The second is to ensure that the increases are well directed to meet the most urgent needs of the schools. This is necessary in order that this vast salary bill, which is now going to be well over £400 million a year, shall be well spent. If we in this House can give a proper account to our constituents to show that we have looked into this matter and got them the right value for money—

Mr. Edward J. Milne: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up a paint far me about the position which he has raised? He talks about deciding on the merits of Burnham negotiations the channels into which the increases should be diverted—that is, the grades of teachers which should have the increases—and then he talks about the Treasury deciding the sum. What will happen if there is a dispute between the Ministry of Education in giving the country the type of teachers that it needs and the Treasury with which it is battling to get the amount of money necessary to provide those teachers? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if in connection with negotiating machinery of this description he is going to wipe out free negotiations in the early stages he will either run into trouble on the education side or run into a head-on clash between the Treasury and the Ministry of Education?

Sir D. Eccles: Such clashes are nothing new, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Perhaps I have failed to make this point to the House. All the things which the


hon. Gentleman fears—and quite rightly—happen now only at the point when the Burnham Committee has gone through all the work and recommended an award and the Minister, for one reason or another, has to reject it. All I am asking is that we should in future be able to talk to the local authorities not by hinting, or whispers round the corner, but as partners in the service, working out what is the best way to spend these immense sums of money which we all know we have to provide for the teachers.

Mrs. White: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal with the two points I raised? The first dealt with the comparison between the time of the Scottish teachers' award and the length of the proposal for the English and Welsh teachers. I understand that both are to terminate at the end of March, 1964, which gives the Scots six months more than the English and Welsh. Would he also please confirm that the training college programme is not to be touched?

Sir D. Eccles: I am afraid that the time comparison is not really very important compared with the comparison of the levels of the salary scale. The hon. Lady will probably know that the three-year non-graduate woman teacher in Scotland, under the new settlement, starts at £560 and goes on to £1,070 a year—very much less than what I can do with my £42 million. Under the £47½ million, however, the gap would be intolerable. For that reason, we must look a little bit across the Border at the relative scales.

Mrs. White: That is one particular scale on the basic scale, but is not it the case that the total increase is of the order of 14 per cent. and a little bit for both, and that the fact that it is for six months less in the agreement period for English teachers means that they get less?

Sir D. Eccles: It means that the two scales were reached together. Very close comparisons cannot be made, and we do not consider that it would be wise to have too large a gap. It would not be wise to take too exact a comparison, because scales are different on either side of the Border.
The hon. Lady also asked me about the training college programme. That stands as it was. Only minor works have been cut, but I believe that, inside the rest of the major works programme, it is right to study—and I have not yet completed my study—whether some reallocation of building projects can be made, so that one or two technical colleges that are very badly needed, some laboratories and some secondary schools, could be pulled forward and embarked upon a little earlier.

5.33 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Before the Minister spoke several of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said that this debate afforded him the opportunity to make a statement. Having heard that statement, I think that it is most unfortunate that he has been afforded that opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I think that it is a statement that will only aggravate a very difficult situation.
Before the right hon. Gentleman spoke, it was believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mainly responsible for the present difficult position. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he would have intervened in any case, whether there had been an economic crisis or not. By and large, he apparently regards the teachers as overpaid. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] That is certainly the impression he has created.

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member is playing politics.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman is always playing politics. That is the last quarter from which complaint should come. Let us consider what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that for twelve months or more he was thinking about the Burnham procedure.
Can anything be more irresponsible than to allow the Burnham Committee to go through all its negotiations when the right hon. Gentleman had previously taken a decision that this procedure had to be altered and that he was not prepared to accept a conclusion that the Committee might reach? That is the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman said. That is precisely what he said, as my hon. Friend reminds me. Nothing


can make negotiations more futile and more difficult if the right hon. Gentleman discloses that that was his attitude.
Let us see the further thing which the right hon. Gentleman said. He said in a philosophic sort of way that, of course, we are living in a different era from that envisaged in 1944, that we are living in a period of a steadily rising cost of living. That was his case. But if that is the right hon. Gentleman's case, he has to recognise that it is because in the Burnham procedure there is a considerable time-lag before teachers get any increase to which they are entitled. This is the dilemma which faces the Burnham Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to know well enough that the difficulty that has faced the Whitley Councils has been this very difficulty. In fact, steps have been taken in two directions, one to provide for a regular review and the other to provide machinery for establishing a parity with people doing similar jobs in private industry. This is the dilemma which faces the teachers, but it seems a bit thick for the Government to come to people like the teachers, who have been obliged to face this lag when other people in comparable jobs have been getting increases, and to say that the bill is very high. What one has to consider is parity.
The Government have surely had plenty of warnings about this. All that the right hon. Gentleman has said tonight has been said in previous instances. As the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health knows, it was said about employees in the National Health Service. At the end of the day the Government gave far larger increases than they had envisaged. The hon. Lady knows that the same was said about the doctors, about the police and about the railwaymen.
If the right hon. Gentleman doubts this, I challenge him to set up a Commission to inquire into teachers' salaries. Let him do it if that is his view. But to come to the House and say that this procedure ought to be reviewed when one cannot take account at a sufficiently early stage of a rising cost of living and then to complain of the size of the increase ignoring the long period during which the teachers have been unable to counter this rising cost of living seems

to me to be the sort of argument that is going to make the present difficulty much more difficult.
Let us take the other two matters with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt. Value for money. I regard this in the present context as offensive. And, again, I invite the right hon. Gentleman—in fact I challenge him—in view of the selective figures which he gave, to institute an inquiry and to find out what is the parity and what that would entitle the teachers to receive in present circumstances.
We have had the example of the doctors. We have the figures, incidentally, which were provided for the inquiry into doctors' salaries. The right hon. Gentleman said that the teaching profession is not being seriously undermanned. We are told—the political commentators tell us—that the right hon. Gentleman will not remain in office much longer. It will be very unfortunate if this is the last speech he makes as Minister of Education. He can foresee what will happen in the next twelve months or so. We are being faced with an aggravating crisis in teacher supply. He has described the profession as an "in and out profession." We are faced with increasing wastage rates. All these are indications of teaching being seriously under-manned. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be shaking his head. This is the first time I have understood it to be his case that the profession is not seriously under-manned. I thought that was recognised. We have had the figures of the over-sized classes. We have the projection of the demands on teachers to be made in the next few years.
Finally, there is the question of priorities. I concede that the right hon. Gentleman has consistently pleaded the case for education, as he did this morning. He has previously traced our difficulties to past parsimony in regard to education under earlier Conservative Governments. This is the dilemma facing us. This is a service on which we cannot afford to economise. The Minister must be sufficiently tough in his present job to say that we cannot afford to economise in education. In spite of his jauntiness and complacency this morning, he knows that he faces a very real crisis. He knows that he faces a deadlock in the Burnham negotiations. He


knows that he has no power to do anything, except to threaten, as he has impliedly threatened this morning that the teachers will not get any increase, unless they give way and accept his dictatorship.
This will not help education. I rose only to make this plea to the Minister. I hope that he will stand firm by what he said about education in the past. I hope that he will be prepared to go back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Cabinet and say that education remains a top priority, that this deadlock cannot be tolerated, and that there will have to be a further and better offer to the teachers. Only in that way shall we secure the educational service we need.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT, NORTH LANARKSHIRE AND N.E. ENGLAND

6.2 a.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I apologise to the staff of the House for keeping them for a still further period at this time of the morning. I aim sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will not expect me to apologise to him for keeping him to reply to the debate. He knows very well that the matter I intend to raise is of very great human significance. This will be the last opportunity for three months of raising a matter that vitally affects many of my constituents and, indeed, thousands of people throughout the whole of North Lanarkshire, which covers a much wider area than my own constituency.
On Monday, 24th July, we had a debate on trade and industry in Scotland. That was a most significant date. The debate was opened for the Government by the President of the Board of Trade. When the Secretary of State for Scotland replied, he quoted these few lines:
What was he doing, the great God Pan,
Down in the reeds by the river?
Spreading ruin and scattering ban.
—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 148.]
The right hon. Gentleman thought he was being very clever in that quotation. He accused my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who spoke for us

from the Front Bench, of scattering gloom in Scotland—needlessly scattering gloom, according to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friends were trying to give a realistic appraisal of the position of trade, industry and employment in Scotland.
I said that 24th July was a significant date. It was on Tuesday, 25th July, just a day after that debate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his economy measures—the 7 per cent. Bank Rate and the other Acts to meet the crisis. That night the Chancellor cast not merely gloom, but a murky darkness over many areas of Scotland. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for coming along to this debate. Both he and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade know the strong reaction of the Scottish Trades Union Council to what it has been told will be the result of these measures on employment and industry in Scotland.
Speaking in the debate on 24th July, the Secretary of State for Scotland said of the future prospects:
Of course, the subject is full of hazards and one cannot be certain about what will happen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 150.]
The biggest hazard facing Scotland today is what will happen as a result of the Chancellor's economy measures. I have no doubt that when the right hon. Gentleman was trying to give us a fairly bright picture of Scotland's future he knew of the proposals which the Chancellor was to announce the following day.
We want to know what effects these proposals will have on Scotland's employment prospects. The S.T.U.C. wants to know that. It is something which all those who have scheduled areas under the Local Employment Act want to know. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that if we are to adjourn for nearly three months this is the only opportunity for getting an authoritative statement on this matter. Is the hon. Gentleman as optimistic about our prospects as his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was on 24th July?
The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the development of the B.M.C. factory at Bathgate as a breeder industry, in other words, an industry


from which ancillary industries would flow. We all hope that that will prove to be the case. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Apart from supplying what at present has to be brought in, the existence of such industries in Scotland ought to have attractive capacity to the type of industry which uses their products. This is the kind of breeder industry which we want to get in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 151.]
What is the Board of Trade doing to attract such industries as we were told would develop from this breeder industry of the B.M.C. in Bathgate and Rootes, in Linwood? I am particularly interested in the industries which will follow the B.M.C.
I am to put a pointed question to the Under-Secretary. Do the officers in the head office in Glasgow just sit back waiting for inquiries to come in? If so, I suggest that it is high time the Minister injected a sense of urgency into those officers and an appreciation of the need to do everything possible to get these ancillary industries. We cannot blame the officers and I shall not do so, because they are not here to answer for themselves. But the responsibility to give directions is that of the Minister. I want to know what has been done.
I have repeatedly asked questions on this matter. I am fortunate in the fact that part of my constituency is not far from the B.M.C. factory and I hope that some of my constituents will find work there. At Harthill, only five miles from the site, there is the arterial road A.8 and a railway line quite near to an excellent industrial site. I should like to know one thing that the President of the Board of Trade has done to try to get ancillary industries into the area which is so admirably placed from the point of view of the breeder industry of B.M.C. On the other main Glasgow—Edinburgh road, Caldercruix & Plains have admirable sites for ancillary industries from B.M.C. and I should like a specific answer on this subject. I am tired of the vague generalisations which have come from the Government Front Bench. They seem to me to hide the fact that the Government are doing much less than they ought to be doing to bring work to this area.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State would describe the steel strip mill on the other side of my constituency as

a breeder industry. That is what we hoped that it would be. The cold rolling mill at Gartcosh comes into production in October this year. The building of that wonderful plant has been right up to schedule and I give credit to everyone who has taken part in that project. I give credit to the Government for providing a great part of the money to Colvilles to make it possible, but I want to say something further. In Scotland, many people are perturbed that this cold strip mill will be producing our first strip steel in October with not a single new industry to take the products. We shall have the spectacle of steel strip being produced in Scotland and possibly having to be exported over the Border to other industries. If that is the case, it will not prove to be the breeder industry which all of us, including the Secretary of State, hoped.
The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that on numerous occasions I have drawn attention to this area with its great possibilities. The Deputy Controller of the Board of Trade came to Gartcosh to examine a possible site there, and I have been told that because of the mineral situation it would be of no use for industry. I know that Colvilles had to have a huge part of the coalfield sterilised for the cold strip mill. But not many miles away is Muirhead and Chryston, an area growing in population, not very far from Glasgow and with an excellent ground for an industrial estate, which could provide the factories to use the steel strip which is to come from Gartcosh. Gartcosh-Muirhead-Chryston is a single council area, and in the last few years Lanarkshire has built it up considerably by bringing population from other council areas. I should like to know one specific action—just one—which the Board of Trade has taken to attract industry to this area to use the strip steel.
In the debate on 24th July, the Secretary of State spoke of West Lothian and the decline on the shale oil industry there. He said:
There is the prospect…that we may be on the verge of solving the problem in a very important area of Scotland which was facing the risk of becoming derelict."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July 1961; Vol. 644, c. 153.]
The Secretary of State knows that it was not his action which made it possible


to solve the problem; it was the fortuitous circumstance of the choice of the site by B.M.C. I am grateful that B.M.C. chose that site.
I return to the question of an area becoming derelict. I have the preliminary Report of the Sixteenth Census of Scotland, 1961. I looked at the figures for West Lothian, and the comparison between the population figures for 1951 and 1961. There are two small areas in West Lothian which show a decline in population and the total of this decline during those ten years was 489. In every other area in West Lothian there was an increase. I looked at the figures for Lanarkshire and I found that five out of the nine district council areas show a decrease in those ten years—a decrease amounting to 4,829, not 489. There is an overall increase in Lanarkshire of a little over 11,000, but, when one remembers that East Kilbride has taken over 20,000 from Glasgow during the past ten years, a very sorry picture for the rest of Lanarkshire is left. What is the Minister's reaction to that decline?
In some areas, the dereliction is an accomplished fact, not something in prospect. Good luck to West Lothian. I hope that people prosper there as I should like every area of Scotland to prosper, but the fears the Secretary of State feels about a dereliction which might come about should be greatly exceeded by his concern for dereliction which has come about.
There is one area out of the five which has lost population particularly badly. In the area of the seventh district council alone there has been a decrease of population of 1,930 during the past ten years. The ratio of 1961 to 1951 in that area is 94–8. The figures of dereliction which I have given prove to the hilt the need for additional industry. The seventh district council area is by far the worst hit in Lanarkshire, and the whole county presents a gloomy picture in population statistics.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that much of the loss of population is due to the closure of mines. Shotts, Newmains, Cleland and Salsburgh have all been badly hit by the closure of mines. There are not as many men employed in the shale oil industry in the whole of West Lothian as were em-

ployed in mining in the one town of Shotts in 1949. On the eve of the holidays the ninth and last pit has closed.
I asked the President of the Board of Trade last week why a firm which was looking for an industrial site in Lanarkshire was not taken to that area. I was told that it wanted to be near a big centre of population. and that was the reason. I tell the Parliamentary Secretary frankly that I do not accept that. To take one place, Newmains, without any break in habitation one passes from Newmains to Wishaw. The same is true as one passes from Wishaw to Motherwell and from Motherwell to Hamilton. In that area, with Newmains at the eastern end of it, there is a big population, with highly skilled craftsmen among it, the very type of people that some of these new industries need.
Will the hon. Gentleman make quite clear in his Glasgow office that this is not an isolated, marooned area stuck out like a tiny island? It is an area with a big population all round it. I hope that when industrialists are being shown over, they will be taken to that area, with Newmains in the centre, Shotts on one side and Cleland and Salsburgh on the other side.
The Government decided to put their advance factory in Shotts. Will there be any delay in the building of this factory because of the Chancellor's economy proposals? When I was home at the week-end, many of my people were asking that question. I want to be able to give them an answer. Instead of any delay, I urge the Government to speed the building of this factory.
Because of previous experience, I should like to know what active steps the Government will take to find a tenant for the factory when it is built. We in the Shotts area want to be sure that there is not the delay in finding a tenant for the Shotts advance factory that there has been with the Coatbridge one. The advance factory built in Wales got a tenant without trouble, as did the one in England. Why was there great delay in finding a tenant for Coatbridge? People in the whole of Lanarkshire are perturbed and annoyed when they read that five firms wished to have the tenancy of the Coatbridge factory. The Parliamentary Secretary must tell us


this morning why, in those circumstances, with five firms wanting the factory, there was shocking delay in deciding on a tenant. I stress this, because we do not want the same experience when the Shotts factory is built.
My final point concerns the advance factories that are being made out of the Admiralty buildings at Carfin, a number of which, I understand, are still vacant. Carfin is not far from Cleland. It would provide work for many people in Cleland. As only one industrialist could get the advance factory in Coat-bridge, I want to know why the Board of Trade did not ensure that the other four industrialists who wanted it went to Carfin. If Coatbridge suited them, I cannot see anything against their wanting to go to Carfin. Did the Board of Trade see the five industrialists? Can the President of the Board of Trade tell me why some of these factories in Carfin are still vacant?
I have put a great many questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. I am grateful that both he and one of the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland have been present to listen to the case, and I hope that he will be able to give satisfactory answers to my questions.

6.14 a.m.

Mr. Edward J. Milne: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in apologising to the staff of the House for keeping them to this extent. I had not intended to participate in the debate this morning. I stayed on to serve my apprenticeship, as it were, and to understand the democratic procedures of the House.
When I saw the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade I was, naturally, more interested in his attendance than in that of some of the other Ministries which have been represented throughout the night. Like my hon. Friend, I also represent a constituency in an area which is equally apprehensive about the intention of the Board of Trade.
In a question to the President of the Board of Trade only some three weeks ago, we were informed that about 600 new jobs were scheduled for the Blyth constituency during the next six months; but we received that news in my constituency with some apprehension be-

cause, over the years, we have had promises and intentions from the Board of Trade pointed out to us, and then, later, received only disappointment. Unlike most other constituencies in Britain, that disappointment has been increased by the fact that the Chancellor, in announcing that the country had run into an economic crisis, appeared to single out these self-same areas for special treatment; but not the kind of special treatment we had hoped we should receive. At a time when the pit closures are making inroads into employment prospects, we find that the lack of alternative industry is causing many of our people to drift southwards.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade tell us precisely what is to happen to the 600 jobs which we have been promised? As we pointed out a few weeks ago, while we welcomed that promise, the Government is really only tinkering with the problem. We can look back six or eight months when there was a by-election in my constituency, and the President of the Board of Trade showed some interest in the area. Following the by-election we understood that the matter would be examined. It is true that both the President and the Parliamentary Secretary visited the south-east of Northumberland. Some of the visits were considerably shorter than others and, while the Parliamentary Secretary has assured me that he was very well received, the people of the area are very doubtful about the value of the visit, squeezed into the half-hour before lunch time. I do not want to be unfair, but I think that thirty minutes to an hour and a half would have covered the extent of this visit.
We are thinking of the areas of highest unemployment and what they are looking for is not only additional jobs, but a diversification of jobs; and that means a diversification of industry. For too long we have been dependant on single industries and in the Midlands and the South, the Government, when it still claimed that we were an affluent society, told us that there were more jobs than people requiring them; but that was not so in the areas I have mentioned. This is a question of assisting the country as a whole, and not merely the area I have mentioned, or even Northumberland as a whole.
One of the reasons we have run into this type of crisis is not that we are facing an economic crisis as a nation, but that we are facing an economic crisis created by the type of policies which this Government have been carrying on for the last ten years. West Germany has been cited as an example to many of us in the industrial areas of this country. The unemployment rate in that country at the moment is running at about ½ per cent., I believe. Had the President of the Board of Trade and had his Department been able to divert and attract industries to the south-east of Northumberland and into areas of high unemployment the country might have reached a similar position, and we could have produced similar figures of employment, and that would have given us in production the difference between what now is an economic crisis and a certain amount of fluency in the industrial position.
While I would indict not the Government but the policies which have created the crisis, the real villian of the piece, in my view, and in the view of the people I represent, is the President of the Board of Trade, because he has examined the problem; and I credit him with understanding the nature of the problem, and also on having the "know-how" to tackle and solve it. Where he is to be indicted by the people of areas like mine is in his failure to stand up to the Cabinet and to stand up to the Treasury to see that the location of industry became a major plank in the economic planning of the Government. It may be that till we get rid of the present Government we are not going to solve our problem, but, whether we like it or not, they still have a considerable time to run, and our people cannot afford to wait.
On this occasion which has been given to back benchers to voice the grievances of their constituents I would impress upon the President of the Board of Trade the necessity to tackle this problem not only in the interests of the people I represent, but in the interests of the country as a whole.

6.23 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. Lady the Member for Lanark-

shire, North (Miss Herbison) was good enough to give me notice that she was going to raise some of the points she has mentioned, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) has also come in to reinforce some of the points she made and make some fresh ones of his own.

Mr. Milne: May I apologise for not giving prior notice? As I said, I was serving my apprenticeship in the democratic procedure of the House, and it was only by waiting to see what would happen that I found that I could intervene. I intended no disrespect to the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary in not giving notice. I intervened only for the reason I have explained.

Mr. Macpherson: I was not in any way complaining that I had not been given notice. I was only saying that the hon. Lady had given me notice and that the hon. Gentleman had come into the debate. Of course, there are advantages in giving notice which will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice in the course of his education, as he puts it, tonight.
I would deal right away with one point he raised. It simply is not true that the present crisis has anything to do with the failure, which he alleges, of the Local Employment Act policy.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Nor has it anything to do with my right hon. Friend's failure to stand up to the Treasury. Indeed, one Committee of the House of Commons has complained about, or certainly drawn attention to, the fact that the amounts of money that have been made available for the distribution of industry policy are so very great and so very open. There is no question of any friction in this matter between my right hon. Friend and the Treasury. As one would expect, we have had the fullest support of the Treasury in pursuing this policy.
There is a main factor in getting firms to go to development districts. This is the I.D.C. control, and I would say to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North that this is not a mere generalisation. It is the foundation of the whole policy. It is not a question, either, of regional controllers sitting waiting for firms to go to them. The system is based


on two elements. First, there is fresh industry coming along that has never been here before, possibly from abroad or possibly a new firm coming into business. To do anything at all it must apply for an industrial development certificate. In the same way firms which want to expand must apply for a certificate. These are the two sources from which we can steer industry into development districts. We cannot conjure them up from the void or go to some body and persuade them to go. It is the concrete plans, the ideas that industrialists have for themselves for a development, that lead to steering firms to devlopment districts.
Our powers are, first, to say to new firms, "We would like you to go to development districts" and, secondly, to say to firms which want to expand in areas where there are serious problems of finding adequate labour, "You cannot expand where you want to. Will you please look at the development districts?" We then invite them to go to development districts which we think will be most appropriate and I think that it is true that in every case they are invited to go both to the North East and to Scotland. That is how we tackle this problem. We have our obligations under the Local Employment Act and we have to have regard to existing and prospective unemployment in the area.
The fact is that unemployment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Blyth is not sufficient for us to say that it is a development district and, therefore, it cannot obtain the absolute priority which the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North receives in the steering of industry into development districts. That is something of which the hon. Member should not be complaining.
It is true that of late two shipbuilding contracts have gone to the hon. Member's constituency and have kept the level of employment up in that area. As the hon. Member says, there are further jobs to be developed. I confess that I cannot carry in my head all the developments in the country and cannot tell him what these developments are, but the situation in his constituency, which my right hon. Friend and I have visited on many occasions, is kept under close review

When the hon. Member implied that my right hon. Friend's interest was a little spasmodic and was aroused at election time that was most unfair. He knows perfectly well the circumstances in which this matter arose. There was a telephone call to my right hon. Friend asking whether he would consider placing the hon. Member's constituency on the development district list. My right hon. Friend said that he would give it consideration. What else could he say? That was what happened in that case. My right hon. Friend has certainly given it consideration. We have been giving it consideration on more than one occasion.

Mr. Milne: I should like to correct any misunderstanding that there may be on this matter. When the hon. Gentleman refers to a telephone call, it could be inferred that it came from me. It did not. It came from the Tory candidate in my area.

Mr. Macpherson: I do not think it would have mattered whether it came from the hon. Gentleman or the Tory candidate. Each was entitled to telephone my right hon. Friend and question him. The call happened to have been from the Tory candidate. I am not complaining of that; I am merely stating the facts and pointing out that it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest either that my right hon. Friend has not taken an interest in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—a continuous interest—or that he went out of his way to give the impression, during the General Election, that he was taking an interest which he was not taking.
The hon. Lady raised three main points. The first was the effect of the economy measures announced last week. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned it. The second was the question of steps that have been taken to show industry certain places and to attract industry to those places. The third was the question of the advance factory in Shotts. I will deal first with the last point, because it is relatively easy to dispose of quickly.
I assure the hon. Lady that there is no intention of slowing up on the advance factory in Shotts. My right hon. Friend made it clear in his statement that we


were to continue. He said that the Government will, of course, continue to use their powers vigorously to deal with these local situations and others at present unforeseeable that may emerge. As there is a local situation at Shotts, it would not be consistent with that statement, of course, to slow up in any way on the advance factory arrangements.
The hon. Lady was anxious for an assurance that there would not be the same delay as at Coatbridge. I cannot give that assurance, and will tell her why. There was no delay at Coatbridge at all. What happened was that a firm came along very soon after the Coatbridge factory had been completed—perhaps before—was interested in it and made application to B.O.T.A.C. Everybody knows that these procedures with B.O.T.A.C. are bound to take time. Unfortunately, the firm refused the offer and decided to go elsewhere.
There have been other firms interested in the factory. One of them applied to B.O.T.A.C. and its application was not accepted, but that case did not delay the finding of a tenant at all. Very soon after the first firm had refused the assistance offered, another firm came along and in its turn instituted its application to B.O.T.A.C. An offer has been made, and I understand that it is being accepted by the firm and that the firm itself will very shortly be making an announcement.
That can happen in any case of an advance factory. It may very well happen as it did in the case of the Holyhead factory, where a suitable firm came along and made an application for B.O.T.A.C. assistance which was acceptable to both the firm and the Committee, and it so happened that it came along shortly after the factory began to be built, and everything went extremely smoothly. I hope very much the same will happen at Shotts, but I am afraid that I cannot guarantee it.
I saw the paragraph in the Scotsman, to which the hon. Lady drew my attention, about five firms which wished to have the factory. There may even have been more. She asked whether they were invited to go to Carfin. Of the seven separate buildings there placed at the disposal of the Board of Trade, five have already been let, and two are

being prepared as advance factories. Firms have shown interest in them. I do not think that one can expect more than that. That has gone extremely well, and my right hon. Friend, in the course of the debate, paid tribute to Members opposite who drew his attention to this, with the result that we were able to make seven of the old R.N.A.S. buildings available for industry.

Miss Herbison: The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken about one firm applying to B.O.T.A.C. and being offered something and not accepting it, then of a second firm applying to B.O.T.A.C. and not being given anything, and of a third which has applied to B.O.T.A.C. and is, possibly, to take the factory. This shows that there is delay. Is B.O.T.A.C. getting through these applications as quickly as it might?
The hon. Gentleman also said that there may have been more than five firms. But he should know, in an area which desperately needs work, how many there were. Three are accounted for. What about the others? Have they slipped through his fingers?

Mr. Macpherson: It is not a question of firms slipping through our fingers. The hon. Lady must realise that there are other areas besides her own constituency. Firms look at several areas. No doubt they were interested in Coatbridge among other factories. That is not to say that Coatbridge was the only place that they were interested in.
I tried to make it clear that the second application did not hold up proceedings in any way. There was, as I have explained previously, a backlog for B.O.T.A.C. to take over when it first started to examine cases. That has been substantially overtaken. There are about 90 cases outstanding at present, and the time that elapses once a firm has supplied all the information that it has to supply—a great deal of the delay arises on the firms' side as well—is between two and three months.
The hon. Lady started off by talking about gloom. She said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intensified gloom rather than dispersed it. Since his statement we have not heard of any firm which had proposals for development


withdrawing those proposals, or deciding not to go on with them. I cannot say more than that we have not heard of a case. It might be that firms have looked at their development prospects again, but we have no reason to believe that that is the case.
Expansion and construction are going on all the time. It might help the hon. Lady if I tell her of what has been happening in North Lanarkshire. During the past two years expansions of firms employing over 100 persons have exceeded closures and reductions by over 3,000 in 1959–60 and by over 2,000 in 1960–61. The actual figures are 3,215 and 2,164. While there was a reduction of 633 on balance in 1958–59, the increase has been 4.746 in the last three years.
North Lanarkshire—the hon. Lady mentioned some other areas—is an area in which the insured population is increasing, taken as a whole. It rose by some 4·2 per cent., or 6,200 in 1960. Employment in manufacturing industry actually rose by 6·3 per cent., or 4,400, in North Lanarkshire. B.O.T.A.C. assistance in the hon. Lady's constituency up to 17th July—at any rate offers of B.O.T.A.C. assistance—amounted to some £660,000.

Miss Herbison: rose—

Mr. Macpherson: May I finish what I have to say on this point?
Two of the projects involving about one-third of this total of £660,000 did not go ahead, but the remainder are expected to provide about 1,800 jobs. This is part of the results of the procedure that we have been adopting and it shows that industry is coming to these areas. Naturally, we cannot expect to find enough industry to fill up all the places that the hon. Lady would like us to fill, or which we should like to see filled. The amount of industry on the move is not sufficient to do that.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman quoted a considerable sum of money and he went on to say that one firm did not go ahead. He can hardly talk of that one firm which did not go ahead as a successful achievement by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Macpherson: It is up to the firms concerned. The Board of Trade makes

the offer which is recommended by B.O.T.A.C. I was not saying that this was a success. I was indicating what the Board of Trade is doing. Obviously, if a firm does not accept the assistance we cannot claim any success in that case, but it shows what the Board of Trade has been doing and the offers which it has been making.

Miss Herbison: I tried to make my questions specific. What I have been getting at is North Lanarkshire. My constituency is called Lanarkshire, North, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that North Lanarkshire is seven-eighths of the biggest county in Scotland. What the hon. Gentleman is telling us is what is happening to an area with a population almost as big as that of Glasgow. This is a constituency matter which I have stayed here to discuss. I am not asking for factories in every village in my constituency. I tried to group them and to show that it was an area, not one village which had become derelict but groups of villages which ought to be helped.

Mr. Macpherson: I quite appreciate the hon. Lady's point, but we have to treat the development districts as a whole—and the groups of them as a whole. We cannot undertake to ensure that industrialists will choose even to visit all the places which the hon. Lady would like to see them fill. This is a matter of choice for the industrialists themselves. I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to deal with the areas as a whole because that is the way in which we deal with these matters.
I am coming to the points which she has raised and I shall try to answer them specifically, but I want to give the background, first, of this whole area. The hon. Lady went outside her own area in making her speech and I want to deal with the area as a whole. The hon. Lady gave the impression that this was an area from which there was a drift away. I have said that in the area as a whole there are more registered employed and the amount of employment in manufacturing industries has been increased. I go further and say that the wholly unemployed as at mid-June has fallen from 4·9 per cent. in 1958 to 3·4 per cent. in 1961. It rose a little in 1959.
The hon. Lady asked about places. She dealt particularly with Shotts and Hart-hill. I sympathise with her anxiety that we should encourage and induce firms to go to these places in her constituency. Relatively, the advantages that she referred to of various places may not make quite the same appeal to industrialists with propositions as she envisages. Our Regional Controller will certainly show these areas to industrialists with suitable projects, especially those who are anxious to establish themselves near Bathgate in industries with particular connection with the B.M.C. It is true that the B.M.C. is a breeding industry.
The hon. Lady asked what the Board of Trade is doing to attract such industry, but it is the breeding industry itself which attracts industry. When the effect of the breeding comes to the Board of Trade, we can deal with it. We cannot ourselves breed the industry to fill up the various corners in her constituency.

Miss Herbison: rose—

Mr. Macpherson: No. The hon. Lady must allow me to deal with the points she raised.

Miss Herbison: I object to "corners". I have spoken about places with a huge population.

Mr. Macpherson: If the hon. Lady does not like the word "corners", I will substitute the word "places". I merely used a term. I have explained the I.D.C. procedure. I warn the hon. Lady now, as I have already done in correspondence, that there are difficulties at Harthill. The local authority boundary runs across the village and neither West Lothian nor Lanarkshire has designated land for industrial

development there. Once the route of the by-pass is finally settled, they may be more ready to do so. In the meantime, when there are alternative places available it is difficult to take firms to a place where there is uncertainty about the future layout.
I certainly understand the hon. Lady's enthusiastic belief that there is no place like Shotts. We recognise the particular advantages which Shafts may have. Again, this is a matter for industry to decide. We shall certainly draw the attention of industrialists looking for sites to Shotts and the availability of steel from Colvilles. The likelihood of being able to supply both Linwood and Bathgate axe relevant considerations. The fact is that North Lanarkshire has been doing far from badly. The hon. Lady should give credit for this. In view of two new advance factories in the area, with the redevelopment of Carfin, with five extensions to existing factories going on in the area, with over 4,000 jobs in prospect, with a rising working population and a falling ratio of unemployment, not to mention the help which we have given to the hon. Lady personally, the hon. Lady should have given the Government a little more credit than she has.
We do our best to ensure that the needs of particular places are met, but there are a great many places in Scotland where there is a need to bring in new industries. The amount of new industry on the move at any given time is limited, and with the best will in the world we cannot undertake to bring industry to every place which needs it. All that we can do, and are doing, is to deal with the problem in Scotland, and I think that the figures show that we are doing it successfully.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

6.51 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I desire to raise the question of entitlement to unemployment benefit in cases involving the trade dispute provisions. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for being here to attend to this matter at this curious hour.
The matter which I am raising has points in common with the issue raised on the Adjournment about a fortnight ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). At column 845 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 14th July he raised a point similar to that which I wish to raise. I hope that the right hon. Lady will regard it as a measure of the anxiety felt about this part of the administration of social insurance that two hon. Members should raise similar points within a comparatively short period of time.
This matter was brought to my notice by the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. R. Morrison of 8, Botanic Place, Liverpool, 7. He found himself out of work in February of this year as a consequence of a strike in which he has claimed that he had no concern. The question arose whether he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit by virtue of section 13 (1) of the National Insurance Act, 1946, or whether he could take advantage of the proviso to that section. I will read what the proviso says:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in the case of a person who proves:

(a) that he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work; and
(b) that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the stoppage, there were members employed at his place of employment any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute."

The test claim covering Mr. Morrison's case was allowed by the local tribunal. My first letter from the right hon. Lady's Department, dated 22nd March of this year, informed me that payment of unemployment benefit was suspended while the question of an appeal in the test case

was under consideration. On 20th April, I was told that the insurance officer had appealed to the National Insurance Commissioner, and that I would be informed when the Commissioner's decision was known. It is now 2nd August, and I still have not heard the result.
The position is that for five months the question of this man's entitlement to unemployment benefit has remained undetermined. Mr. Morrison had over twelve weeks of unemployment and in that time he had no income of his own whatsoever. His wife was earning a wage which brought him outside the ambit of National Assistance. This was his condition at a time when he was out of work as a result of a strike in which he claims that he was not concerned and when a decision of the local tribunal had been made that he was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to which I have referred. In my view, this constituted a hardship to this man which it should have been within the capacity of intelligent administration to avoid.
It may be that the right hon. Lady and I are, on this occasion, both somewhat inhibited in our consideration of this matter. I should not be surprised to hear from her that she feels that she cannot intervene in the process of adjudication in the appeal now current in the claim covering Mr. Morrison's case. And I should be out of order were I to adumbrate anything which might call for legislation to deal with this problem. Let it be clear, therefore, in the context of what I have said, that what I seek is administrative action which within the existing law would avoid the hardship that this man has suffered and which men in his situation and circumstances are suffering.
It is for the Department to find a way out of or round this difficulty. I did my best to help them. On 19th June this year I put down a Question in which I asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance:
whether, in the case of a man who claims to be unemployed due to a trade dispute in which neither he nor anyone else in his grade or class is participating and where a test claim covering his case has been allowed by the local tribunal, arrangements can be made for the payment of unemployment benefit whilst the relevant test claim is subject to appeal to the National Insurance Commissioner, on the basis, if need be, that there will be a liability


for repayment after his resumption of work if the National Insurance Commissioner allows the appeal.
I got the reply;
No. To introduce a liability for repayment of insurance benefit paid in accordance with a decision of the statutory authorities, and obtained and received in good faith by the claimant, but which is found on appeal not to be payable, would have far-reaching implications throughout the insurance schemes. The rule governing suspension of unemployment benefit in trade dispute cases is needed to secure uniform treatment of all claims made during the dispute, and like the trade dispute disqualification itself, has stood unchanged for over thirty years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1961; Vol. 642, c. 90.]
I can see the force of the first half of that Answer, though I was not impressed by the second half. My purpose now is to press the Ministry to try again to discover an answer to this administrative problem which, I think, is causing unnecessary anxiety and concern to the people affected. I cannot believe that it is outside the wit, ingenuity and skill of the Department to find a way of overcoming this.
I should like to add one further point. The proviso to Section 13 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, to which I referred appears also in Section 9 of the National Assistance Act, 1948. I invite the right hon. Lady to consider the question whether it would be practicable, and perhaps involve no illegality, if a man in Mr. Morrison's position, with a test claim in his favour, albeit the subject of appeal, were given the benefit of the proviso of that Section of the National Assistance Act. Would she consider, if she took a favourable view of it, making the appropriate representations to the National Assistance Board?
I want her to bear in mind that because this man with whom I am concerned had, as I have mentioned, a wife who was earning a wage and was regarded as not eligible, he was treated as not eligible for any National Assistance payments at all. That meant applying a very rigid, perhaps too rigid, interpretation of Section 9.
It was wrong, in my view, that Mr. Morrison should be out of work because of a strike in which he claimed that he was not concerned and that even when his test claim was successful before the tribunal he should be deprived of all

income. He makes his protest. I voice it for him here and associate myself with it. I venture to say that it is for the right hon. Lady's Department to solve and overcome the administrative difficulty which causes, not only in this case but in others, keen and unjustifiable distress.

7.3 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): As the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) said, a similar question concerning benefit for unemployment resulting from a stoppage due to a trade dispute on Merseyside was raised on the Adjournment recently by his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) and, inevitably, I must go substantially over many of the same points.
The hon. Member also kindly pointed out that both he and I are somewhat inhibited in our comments as this case is still before the Commissioner. Once an insured person has lodged his claim and has used the machinery for appeal against the decision of an insurance officer, the case is right out of my right hon. Friend's hands and he cannot—it would not be proper for him to—attempt to intervene in it. I cannot, therefore, comment on the merits of these cases. They are before the Commissioner, and it is for him to decide. Whatever that decision may be, it is binding on my right hon. Friend. I can only outline the general history so far of the cases which affect the hon. and learned Member's constituent and others in his position.
Mr. Morrison was stood off from his employment as a blacksmith's striker on 8th February in consequence of the Merseyside dispute. The test case governing his claim was referred by the insurance officer to the local tribunal who allowed it on 16th March. The insurance officer appealed to the Commissioner within the prescribed 21 days, and, therefore, the payment of benefit was suspended. Mr. Morrison's claim is only one of several arising out of the dispute which are before the Commissioner.
There is always difficulty in a trade dispute case where several unions may be concerned, where different classifications of workers may be involved and


where the difficulty of getting the required information from unions and sometimes from employers makes the case more complicated and protracted than if it were a single, straightforward issue.
This stoppage, which arose over a pay dispute between the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Merseyside Ship Repairers Association, began on 13th January and ended on 6th May. About 3,500 men comprising various categories of workers with differing circumstances were involved. A substantial number of claims were made from 17th January onwards by men made redundant by the stoppage of work, and a large number of these were allowed straightaway and benefit paid. Doubt arose on about 330 claims made by men affected by the stoppage. Of these, about 120 were disallowed by the insurance officer or local tribunal, and no appeals to the Commissioner against these disallowances have been lodged. Benefit was paid to about 150 claimants whose claims were allowed because they were able to take advantage of the escape clauses in the trade dispute disqualification provisions.
The insurance officer made 14 appeals to the Commissioner covering the remaining 50 cases. Three of these appeals, which covered 19 claimants, were decided by the Commissioner on 15th June. The Commissioner upheld the insurance officer's appeals, thus reversing the local tribunal's decision, and disallowed the claims. Nine appeals covering 29 claimants are now with the Commissioner.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly said, the rules governing the payment of or disqualification for benefit during trade disputes are laid down in Section 13 (1) of the National Insurance Act, 1946. The general rule is that unemployment benefit cannot be paid to a person whose unemployment is due to a stoppage of work caused by a trade dispute at his place of employment. Benefit can, however, be paid to those who show that they have become bona fide employed elsewhere or regularly engaged in some other occupation, or that they are not
participating in or financing or directly interested in
the dispute, and do not
belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement

of the stoppage, there were members employed
at their place of employment
any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute".
The hon. and learned Gentleman was a little scornful of my right hon. Friend's reply to him that these provisions had stood the test of time since 1927, in other words, for over thirty years. That does not mean that they have not been looked at during that period and constantly reconsidered.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I did not intend to be scornful. That expression describes over-severely what I said.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not as critical as I understood him to be. We have not done nothing about the provisions for thirty years. Successive Governments, of both parties, have found that it was not practicable to alter them in a way which would prove as satisfactory all round as does the present method. No question was raised on them during the debates on the 1946 Act.
These particular provisions for disqualification are quite erroneously but, I readily admit, very widely regarded as a penal measure directed against strike action. Representations are sometimes made on behalf of people like Mr. Morrison who have not withdrawn their labour and, on the face of it, have no sympathy with the strikers, to the effect that the insurance provisions are being used as a penal measure. But this is a complete misconception. The disqualification is not concerned with the merits of the dispute. The principle behind it is that loss of work due to a trade dispute is not the kind of unemployment for which provision should be made in a national insurance scheme.
The provisions which enable certain claimants out of work as a result of a trade dispute to escape disqualification for unemployment benefit have been examined many times without any acceptable alternative being found. The present rule is straightforwardly based on the assumption of a community of interest among the members of a grade or class: if any one member is concerned in a dispute, all, whether members of that man's union, or of another union.


or not members of any union, are assumed also to be concerned. It has never proved possible to find any other formula which would be fair to contributors generally, which would be administratively workable and which would, at the same time, not cut right across fundamental trade union interests.
The rule governing the suspension of benefit has, like the trade dispute disqualification, stood unchanged since 1927. The object—and this is the main point of the hon. and learned Member's criticism—is to secure uniform treatment of all claimants. It is, therefore, clearly desirable that during a trade dispute, the question of entitlement to unemployment benefit should, as far as possible, be kept clear of the controversy surrounding the dispute. If some men were paid benefit and others similarly placed were refused it on the strength of conflicting tribunal decisions, it would add to the difficulties of the situation and would tend to embroil the National Insurance Scheme in the dispute.
A dispute may cause stoppages at widely separated places all over the country. Uniformity of treatment can only be secured in these circumstances by suspension pending the Commissioner's decision or, as is usual in circumstances involving a large-scale dispute, Commissioner's decisions and, particularly, test case decisions.
The hon. and learned Member has suggested that benefit should be paid in accordance with the tribunal award, with a liability to repay if the Commissioner later reverses the tribunal's decision. There is great difficulty about that. It would be entirely contrary to the principles underlying the present position on the treatment of over-payments of insurance benefits. As the hon. and learned Member knows, throughout the whole insurance scheme there is no liability on a claimant to repay benefit obtained in good faith and properly paid to him in accordance with the decision on his claim given by one of the statutory authorities.
Liability for payment can arise only where an award is reviewed and varied and the statutory authority is not satisfied that the claimant had acted in good faith in all respects as to the obtaining and receipt of the money. In this in-

stance, it would be asking someone to repay money which he had obviously accepted in good faith after a tribunal decision. It has been found that in only a very small proportion of cases in which a decision has been reversed. can repayment be reclaimed on the basis that it was not obtained in good faith. Thus, where there is no doubt about the good faith of the claimant, there is no power for the recovery of benefit paid on a tribunal award which is subsequently overthrown by the Commissioner.
It would hardly be possible to find grounds for confining any provision—again, I must not trespass into the sphere of legislation—requiring repayment of benefit which was found, on appeal, not to be payable solely to people who were paid as a result of an escape clause, such as the hon. and learn Member suggested, appertaining exclusively to trade disputes.
A general provision of this kind would have to cover the whole field of insurance. In that circumstance, it would bear heavily on insured persons who had claimed and received benefit in all good faith, but whose right to it was upset on appeal. It would certainly be quite contrary to the spirit of the present provisions, which require repayment only where the statutory authorities are not satisfied as to the good faith of the claimant.
I should like to say a word on the question of delay. Bearing in mind that the conduct and the timing of these appeals rests entirely with the independent authorities, in fairness one must point out why such operations are sometimes protracted. Generally, under agreed procedure on these trade dispute claims, with the assistance of the trade unions we try to deal with them on the basis of test cases which are selected to cover certain groups of applicants, although this in no way debars individuals from pursuing their own claims if they so wish.
This procedure involves the selection of one case representative of each grade or class of work involved in the dispute. This has considerable advantages for claimants, and the unions, and employers; for the departments concerned, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and also, of course, for the statutory authorities themselves.
Four test claims from blacksmiths' strikers who lost work as a result of this dispute were taken and, with four individual claims, were referred to the local tribunal. One of the test claims covers the claim of Mr. Morrison, who is a blacksmith's striker. The claims were considered by the tribunal at two sittings—on 1st March and 16th March—and all the claims were allowed. Appeals against the allowances were made by the insurance officer on 21st and 30th March, and payment of benefit was accordingly suspended.
Following the submission of the appeals it became necessary to make further inquiries in order that the full facts could be got together for submission to the Commissioner, and the insurance officer's detailed submissions to the Commissioner were made on 1st June. With the withdrawal by the insurance officer of two of his appeals, there are now before the Commissioner four appeals on individual claims and four appeals on test claims covering 19 other claimants. In all, 27 blacksmiths' strikers are covered and, in addition, there is an appeal by a blacksmith which also covers a fellow blacksmith. The number of claims now covered by appeals before the Commissioner is, therefore, 29.
The circumstances surrounding a trade dispute make it difficult to get all the facts, for union officials and employers may well be preoccupied at the time with other aspects of the dispute. At this time, and in this area, there was a dispute on pay, and another on demarcation, with complications which made the task even more difficult. It is therefore hardly surprising that, by the time the appeal had reached the stage of being prepared for the Commissioner, new facts and contentions were brought forward which needed to be verified and investigated before detailed submissions could be made to the Commissioner. While these difficulties explain why it sometimes takes time to get so many appeals arising out of the same dispute ready for the Commissioner, neither

those responsible for preparing the cases for submission to him, nor the Ministry are complacent about the present situation.
With the full co-operation of the Ministry, experiments are now being made to find out whether the preparation for the Commissioner, not only of trade dispute cases, but of appeals generally, can be speeded up. There is good reason to hope that these experiments will be successful and effective, not least in the trade dispute cases where the need for adjudication as speedily as is consistent with justice is specially recognised by the Minister and by the adjudicating authorities.
It is understood that the oral hearings of all the appeals arising out of the pay dispute have been fixed for 23rd and 24th August. It would not be proper for the Minister, or anyone on his behalf, to intervene in the consideration of appeals by the Commissioner, but there is no reason to suppose that the Commissioner is not seized of the undesirability of any avoidable delay. I can give the assurance that, so far as the Minister is concerned, and the members of each department in any way in which we may be concerned, we shall do all in our power to expedite such proceedings.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: May I thank the right hon. Lady for the thoroughness with which she has dealt with the matter. Can I have an assurance that she will, in the light of what I ventured to say, reconsider the possibility of seeking again a way over the main difficulty of suspension of unemployment benefit in these cases. And will she also be good enough to consider the point which I made with reference to eligibility for National Assistance which, I think she will agree, has a connection with matters which are her responsibility?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: indicated assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock a.m.